

'• V • >.V:i • ? 1 

* * ^ * V ** 4 ^ 4 

r.’-, .liii^, .'«■ 


*.’.'• • 4 V> .*■ ' ■» • < * •»- 


• • ♦ 9 - • ■ - I ..•-,* I.' 

4*9 4 -A- 9 *,*■'•*■ 

I •-i-^ ••»■»• • * • «-*.« .■»•■■ 

r. • • • « ■ f > t tt-t a-«*l-«-rl 

*•«••»' < »o -j i,«i« i * f k *■ 

»•«-<-* 1 -t i 1« f .t '4 ■ 9 9 «• 

.-1 -t-r « »,t <■* ••! 

• I •«_> ♦• * * 4 •,« «,• 

fi >•«*«<« a^a 

♦ 

■ -*•1 f« •-> • • 1*- » *4 ♦ .*•.« 4 

. i . . 1 » . ■ j ^ - I . • • «■ 4« 

« ■ .•»♦•■«< •; '/ ■' ■ - • 4 

4 ‘ • * • • t ' 4 ' 4 . . .‘ I V * • ii 

a »'l l‘l 1 » »-• **', •• ♦ 

» « ’ i • < • • . I I - I -.•» ■•> 

(•••••<* 4.4 •-•♦4 ». ■ 


« » 4 

% « 

1 

';i;? 

V.i.l 

' • 5 > 

. 1 • 

;1 • S 


i • '• k 4 ( •-4\-''4- 

.• . , 4 . . . 4 1 < « . f t . . 

•• • a ■ 


M •■Vf 4 


• • .I' 

4 '« ^ • 

• • » * 4 • •«« » 

.4 4 k I a i * : ^ ^ • 

4 4 # I •. 4^ «« 4 • # . ' « 


... * - • ^ ^ ^ - • 4 ' - • 4 i 

4 .>• t * • 4 k 7 9 '• * 

l• 4 ■..♦, 4 ‘•• , 

4 ,•. 4 ^. <*!.•- • * • '-a a 

^ ' I I * I 4 J . 4 kk -l^f.**** < 

4 aN ^ . 4 ♦ ^ » r 4 V ^ ' 

•i.,4-*^-4 44»-4 •*-.4.-4 ..-U-4-'.-» W..a-44 

^ \ < ' ■ ■ ' ■ 

« t 4 ♦ k* • - i 4 ^ ' 4 *•• • 

«'4 « • f « •• 


«'4 « • f « ••* 

• 4 ^ • ; V • 

« .- 4 *^««» 4 « • 

• t •*-• *5##, • t 4 0 ■ • # «:♦ 

• * • • - 4 4 • ^ ^ 4 %• ••• • 

* . . >1 / 

« • 4 .• 4 , • 4 4 t • V » 4 9 • < 

9 4 

•_4.». '• _ ■j'‘' 

4 ■. , • 4.<*a-< 4 9 - ‘ »•• 4 4 »-f>« 4 

• .a a 4 a 4..>a*a '4 4*a a »•«.« « 4 

ai>*«««t a-aia a « a4'a'4 

•A* f 4 **V •**« *'.-4 •* • • 4 • 4 

t 4 4 f i 4 ' 4 * i • 9 9 ' 4 . a. 4 . « 


• . a a * a t-i- 
•ai,. *4 4,» 

•4 a a • a • • . 
a . « a a i < ' 


a . . a - a • p 

« 4 •..4 -*- 4- t-4 4 

a a a 4 ’. ■ . ,f 

-a • ' * I • ■ • 

. 4 4 •' • ■•4'>^ • « a 

■ 4.a. -a 

• i 4- » '4 r'f 

/ 'a'-i' •.:.-,*.r 

,. , a- 4 .a.»r”-' a - 4 . 

V 4 • ^ ■ a . 4 a a a . > 4| 

a * ,4 • 

a' V * • a 4 ^ P I •« 

•' ‘ • ' I . » ■ 

I.a «.<^P a. .-4-4 

|.’a 4-4 -a pla-al 

• ( 4 V ( a a I 

'•..a ( P.a-pa* 

• 4 I 4 ^ . a , 

a , 4 ' 4 a 1 I a 
« I 4 4 - • 4 a -a ' 
I a 4* ' 4 * 

■ •.. a «* a *• ■ •. ,fc 4 

•, '. a -4 1 ■■. i 

4‘,.‘4 

■ ■ 4 9 m * • ' 9 <4 < 

• • * • • •. '4 

a a 4-«>a a.»-. , 

. 4 I- a. . 44 a. . 

• • a. - a 4 -4- 4 a «a 

«•«-,> * aa> 

4 a a 4 a..# >4 < 

• 4 •» I • ‘ ■ 9 ■• 

• . , a »' ‘ a-t '4 .* < 

• a. 4 . I • •■ ’ aa-* . • 


4 ♦ a,a ,a a^a; ;#•• p-. • .'..v<p ,.4 

4 -a- 4 '<l- » *•■•«•••♦« •»«.» 4 P 4 » 1"4 4 * 4 - 

a| .a < 4 . a 4 « a • •,;a.a I. a. 4 

a - »' 4 < 4 • <i,a' 4 >Pi- 

"( ,«4>4aa-»4'a«,a4 .* 4 ./,, / , ».7 ( 

4. 4 A • a I . . . , . ..•.•*• 


• a. A ■ a a • ir- a 

4 • 4 <■/-,*■* <'• • 

4 J 4 , 4 ' 

.9,4.4^4 4 .. 4 aaa.B 4 
4 •t- 4 ^ 

• .«< • ( • 4 4 a-a-A a a 4 


• •«<•{■ r • ' a-, a a 4 

i V * * '*'. • *4 4 ' 4 

4 44 a ’ - 4 a ; a 


»44 - a 4* I a 4 /.Palp. 

.-a.4.4.t.44-a-A.a 4 *.* *- 

44* a , 4 a . a 4 .. 4 a,.i 

I .-. • •• 4 ; 4 4 4-44p-t4.. I- 

4 ' k'4 <•.» I « J ■»! •<414444 

« ' • \ . a ., • ( ^ I ■ < , 4 

• «\.l •’* •,>-< -» •■ • I - a .-(.«• I 

P'W. <<app a-» t 4 . a 4 1 •- 

a • a*-.i 4 a* «.« * 4-i4>ta4 


4 f-» 
























0 O 



c • 

* 

.. ^ •” <St, ‘’•^'’ ^ 

'• .-»? »5idSv‘- v' . • ••** 

'. Vc^*^ :m^% % «.^ ),» 

: Y-r r. 

♦ ^ 

*" G 



V ••' a\ 







♦* . 

*• Yr C*’’ 



bV 


>• : 


• A^ < 


# Ik 




0 * .*• 


.•^■^ y^^'- 




^<i> 





^-.** Y* 

,vv ... •*. '•••* .<' <“. ,0 

0 Q 4^ m ^ /O^ 

'. -^ov^ .'<S^;^* .‘ 



o . 0 ^ N.^ 


<*- 


t • 




^ * © » 0 ’ - 0 ,^ (L 






’ tf. ^ . 


'^ "••• aO" <^ '©•** .0^ ^ 

0* ♦# ©•'’'*♦ 0^ *«• • © 




f. ♦ 

‘ 4>^ ^ • 


rr.-’ ^0 

I.*'' '%, .0^ ‘iJJ* ”*0 ' -K^ .-■•.^^ 




/.ESStlrC- ♦ 



« /°- 
V 








' 1 






. I. 




V.S ’ ■—= 






• i 'i 


k*\ .i^r’ 






f7. 


Jh- 




<4i 








V 






W 


i.. 


v«;,gf?5. 

i4«; 






.t 


'iit: 


v> 


•.A- 




»^ « 


.ii 




V-, 


I*. 




^ .’life 


W -- J 






Lift 












v: 


..^, k. . 0*1 

•-? .^..: -Z 




* A' ?-• '•■* 

\v- 

_ _-- «-‘^ 


if,^ 


\l*'i * 7* ’; 




ri:^ 




■^Sf= 


.•*, 






y-si,"' 


r 


V 












»*». 






.S7jC 

.. 1 4^"-'^'' 




a- 




,V- 


1 w 











J 


% 


1 

• 1 


’. 'UV) wiij.i AM r K''^ 

V 













/ 


PHYSIOGNO 


THE COEEESPONDING ANALOGY 

CONFOEMATION OF THE FEATUE: 



DEC I8T8||^ 


MJD THE 


RULING PASSIONS OF THE MIND: 




BEING 


T 


A COMPLETE EPITOME OP THE ORIGINAL WORK 

OP 


J. C. LAVATER. 


'X(4 ■ 




©bitmn.—llkstrateb. 


" Fliysiognom.y is reading the handwriting of nature upon the human 
countenance." 


LONDON: WILLIAM TEGG. 




M^OOBQtTODAXE AND OO., PRINTERS, LONDON. 
WORKS, NEWTON. 



PEEFACE. 




There is undoubtedly no subject in the science of 
Natural History more curious, entertaining, and instruc¬ 
tive to tbe human race in general, than that which 
respects the variety of complexion and figure among 
mankind. Though much has been written to point out 
the sources from whence these varieties arise, and to 
investigate the causes which certainly produce them, yet 
hitherto but little accurate information has been derived 
from the most arduous and laborious researches of the 
first abstract philosophers of the age. 

The same thing has happened to Physiognomy as to 
Astronomy: they have both been degraded and disgraced 
by the intrigues and artifices of interested knavery. The 
first has been connected to palmistry by a notorious set 
of dusky impostors, who, roving up and down in the 
world, have made a prey of every credulous person they 
could meet with; and the other has been travestied in 
the art of divining future events. Hence have arisen con- 



IV 


PREFACE. 


jurers; the most notorious of which, combining the 
whole together, have not only found admirers in the 
less informed ages of the world, but are even daring 
enough yet, at the latter end of the eighteenth cen¬ 
tury, to hold up their arguments in defiance of experi¬ 
mental philosophy. 

Confused and sophisticated with falsehoods, termed 
occult reasonings, the noble science of Physiognomy has 
been neglected for near a century, and deemed by the 
judicious a mere farcical contrivance to fleece the pockets 
and disturb the brains of the unwary. Thus even those 
who have suspected there might be some rational groimds 
to build hypothesis upon, have been fearful of venturing 
to appear even in the slender form of an essay. 

Prom an accurate survey of all that has hitherto been 
written upon this subject by the soberest authors of the 
preceding age, it will appear that very little knowledge 
of man has been derived; and the falsehoods and errors 
with which their writings abound, are daily becoming 
more evident. Those systems which were established on 
authorities so extremely weak, are now falling into that 
contempt and neglect which must necessaiily await 
every mode of reasoning whose axioms are not founded 
on obvious and derivative facts, and supported by phy¬ 
sical causes. 


PBEFACE. 


V 


The noble ardour for discovering and investigating the 
connection between the inward and outward operations 
of nature in man gave rise, in a neighbouring nation, to 
a splendid and expensive work,* an epitome of which is 
here offered to the public, arranged (the Editor hopes he 
may say withotft presumption) with more order and 
method, and divested of the numerous repetitions which 
the worthy and amiable, but too often rhapsodical 
Lavatee, in the warmth of a disinterested love of man¬ 
kind, introduces at every turn. 

In the present state of our knowledge, a systematical 
view of the physiognomical science can hardly be ex¬ 
pected : a collection of observations arranged but with 
little attention to method, is all the industrious Lavater 
promises, and all we can reasonably expect. However, 
he furnishes us with an instance how much may be 
accomplished, even by an indiyidual, in a subject replete 
with difficulties, when genius and judgment are aided by 
labour, and when the object is pursued with a steady 
regard to truth and veracity. However, it is not the 
Editor’s intention to enter into any panegyric upon the 
labours of M. Lavater: the public will ever judge for 
themselves, and pay the tribute of applause where it is 
due. 


Published by William Tegg. 


vi 


PREFACE. 


To preserve the spirit of Lavater’s reasoning, inspire 
the enthusiasm of his feelings, and the sublimity of his 
conceptions, has been the endeavour of the Editor of the 
present volume, within the small compass of which, he 
hatters himself, he has concentrated, as in a focus, all the 
discoveries and truths contained in the original work. 


1866. 


CONTENTS. 


PAOB 

CHAP. I. —Introduction.— Physiognomy a Science. — The Truth of 
Physiognomy.—The Advantages of Physiognomy.—Its Disadyan- 
tages—The Ease and Difficulty of studying Physiognomy.—A 
"Word concerning the Author.• 1 

CHAP. II.—On the Nature of Man, which is the Foundation of the 
Science of Physiognomy.—Difference between Physiognomy and 
Pathognomy.21 

CHAP. III.—Signs of bodily Strength and "Weakness.—Of Health 
and Sickness.27 

CHAP. IV.—The Congeniality of the Human Form .... 32 

CHAP. V.—Description of Plates I. and II..39 

CHAP. VI.—The universal Excellence of the Form of Man . . 42 

CHAP. VII—Of the Forehead.46 

CHAP. VIII.—Of the Eyes and Eyebrows ... . . 60 

CHAP. IX.—Of the Nose.67 

CHAP. X.—Of the Mouth and Lips.69 

CHAP. XL—Of the Teeth and Chin ..62 

CHAP. XII.—Of Skulls. ... 64 

CHAP. XIII—Suggestions to the Physiognomist concerning the 


CHAP. XIV.—Of the Difference of Skulls as they relate to Sex, and 
particularly to Nations.—Of the Skulls of Children ... 73 

CHAP. XV.—Description of Plate III..78 

CHAP. XVI.—The Physiognomist.80 

CHAP, XVII Lavater’s own Remarks on National Physiognomy . 88 

CHAP. XVIII.—Extracts from Buffon on National Physiognomy . 91 

CHAP. XIX.—Some of the most remarkable Passages from an Ex¬ 
cellent Essay on National Physiognomy, by Professor Kant of 
Konigsberg.97 

CHAP. XX.—Extracts from other Writers on National Physiognomy. 

—From Winkelmann’s History of Art.—From the Recherches Philo- 
sophiques sur les Americains, by M. de Pauw.—Observations by 
Lintz.—From a Letter written by M. Fuessli.—From a Letter 

written by Professor Camper.100 

CHAP. XXI.—Extracts from the Manuscript of a Man of Literature 

at Darmstadt, on National Physiognomy.107 

CHAP. XXII.—Description of Plate IV.113 

CHAP. XXIII.—Resemblance between Parents and Children . . 116 

CHAP. XXIV,—Remarks on the Opinions of Buffon, Haller, and 
Bonnet, concerning the Resemblance between Parents and Children 121 











viii 


CONTENTS. 




CHAP. XXV.—Observations on the New-born, the Dying, and the 

Dead . . ....126 

' CHAP. XXVI.T—Of the Influence of Countenance on Conntenance . 128 
• CHAP. XXVir.—Of the Influence of the Imagination on the Counte¬ 
nance" '.131 

CHAP. XXVIII.—The Effects of the Imagination on the Human Form 133 
CHAP. XXIX.—Essay by a late learned Man of Oldenburg, M. Sturtz, 
on Physiognomy, interspersed with short Remarks by the Author . 138 

CHAP. XXX. Quotations from Huart, with Remarks thereon . . 14i 

CHAP. XXXI.—Remarks on an Essay on Physiognomy, by Professor 


Lichten berg.154 

CHAP. XXXTI.—Description of Plate V.176 


CHAP. XXXIII.—General Remarks on Women .... 177 


CHAP. XXXIV.—General Remarks on Male and Female.— A Word 

on the Physiognomical Relation of the Sexes.181 

CHAP. XXXV.—On the Physiognomy of Youth .... 185 

CHAP. XXXVI.—Physiognomical Extracts from an Essay inserted 
in the Deutschen Museum, a German Journal or Review . . , 188 

CHAP. XXXVII.—Extracts from Maximus Tyrius . , . . 198 

CHAP. XXXVIII.—Extracts from a Manuscript by Th- . . 200 

CHAP. XXXIX.—Extracts from Nicolai and Winkelmann . . 208 

CHAP. XL.—Extracts from Aristotle and other Authors concerning 

Beasts.212 

CHAP. XLI.—Of Birds, Fishes, Serpents, and Insects . . . 225 


CHAP. XLIL—Of Shades.229 

CHAP. XLIir.—Description of Plate VI.. 232 

CHAP. XLIV.-A Word to Travellers.233 

CHAP. XLV.—A Word to Princes and Judges.238 

CHAP. XLVI.~A Word to the Clergy.241 

CHAP.—XLVII.—Physiognomical Elucidations of Countenances . 242 

CHAP. XLVIII.—Physiognomical Anecdotes.244 

CHAP. XLIX.—Miscellaneous Extracts from KaempPs Essay on 

the Temperaments, with Remarks.246 

CHAP. L.—Upon Portrait Painting.248 

CHAP. LI.—Description of Plate VII. ..256 

CHAP. LII.—Miscellaneous Quotations.258 

CHAP, LIII—Miscellaneous Thoughts.261 i * 


CHAP. LIV,—Of the Union between the Knowledge of the Heart and 
Philanthropy.—Miscellaneous Physiognomical Thoughts from 

Holy Writ.265 

CHAP. LV.—Of the apparently False Decisions of Physiognomy.— Of 
the General Objections made to Physiognomy,—Particular Objec¬ 
tions answered . . . . ..270 


4 









PHYSIOGNOM 


CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION. 

Physiognomy a science—The truth of Physiognomy—The 
advantages of Physiognomy—Its disadvantages—The 
ease and difficulty of studying Physiognomy-^A word 
concerning the Author. 

It lias been asserted by thousands, that “ though there 
may be some truth in physiognomy, stiU it never can be 
a science.” These assertions will be repeated, how 
clearly soever their objections may be answered, and 
however little they may have to reply. Physiognomy is 
as capable of becoming a science as any one of the 
sciences, mathematics excepted. It is a branch of the 
physical art, and includes theology and the belles lettres. 
Like these, it may to a certain extent be reduced to 
rule, and acquire an appropriate character by which it 
may be taught. 

Whenever truth or knowledge is explained by fixed 
principles, it becomes scientific, so far as it can be im¬ 
parted by words, lines, rules, and definitions. The 
question will stand simply thus : whether it be possible 
to explain the undeniable striking differences which 
exist between human faces and forms, not by obscure 
and confused conceptions, but by certain characters, 
signs, and expressions? Whether these signs can 


dec l8 ' 




2 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


communicate the strength and weakness, health and 
sickness, of the body; the folly and wisdom, the magna¬ 
nimity and meanness, the virtue and vice, of the mind ? 
This is the only thing to be decided; and he who, instead 
of investigating the question, should continue to declaim 
against it, must either be deficient in the love of truth, 
or in logical reasoning. 

The experimental philosopher can only proceed with 
his discoveries to a certain extent; only can communi¬ 
cate them by words; can only say, “ Such and such are 
my experiments, such my remarks, such is the number 
of them, and such are the inferences I draw: pursue the 
track that I have explored.” Yet will he not be unable, 
sometimes, to say thus much ? Will not his active mind 
make a thousand remarks which he will want the power 
to communicate ?. Will not his eye penetrate recesses 
which he shall be unable to discover to that feebler 
vision that cannot discover for itself? Is any science 
brought to perfection at the moment of its birth ? Does 
not genius continually, with eagle eye and flight, antici¬ 
pate centuries ? How long did the world wait for V/olf ? 
Who, among the moderns, is more scientific than 
Bonnet ? Who more accurately distinguishes falsehood 
from truth ? Yet to whom would he be able to com¬ 
municate his sudden perception of the truth; the result 
or resources of those numerous, small, indescribable, 
rapid, profound remarks ? To whom could he impart 
these by signs, tones, images, and rules ? Is it not the 
same with physic, theology, and aU the arts and sciences ? 
Is it not the same with painting, at once the mother 
and daughter of physiognomy ? 

How infinitely does he,-who is painter or poet born, 
soar beyond all written rule! But must he who pos- 


INTRODUCTION. 


‘3 


sesses feelings and power which are not to be reduced 
to rule, be pronounced unscientific ? So, physiognomical 
truth may, to a certain degree, be defined, communicated 
by signs and words, as a science. This is the look of 
contempt, this of innocence. Where such signs are, such 
and such properties reside. 

There can be no doubt of the truth of physiognomy. 
All countenances, all forms, all created beings, are not 
only different from each other in their classes, races, and 
kinds, but are also individually distinct. Each being 
differs from every other being of its species. However 
generally known, it is a truth the most important to our 
purpose, and necessary to repeat, that “ there is no rose 
perfectly similar to another rose, no egg to an egg, no 
eel to an eel, no lion to a lion, no eagle to an eagle, no 
man to a man.” 

Confining this proposition to man only, it is the first, 
the most profound, most secure and unshaken founda¬ 
tion-stone of physiognomy, that, however intimate the 
analogy and similarity of the innumerable forms of men, 
no two men can be found who, brought together and 
accurately compared, will not appear to be very remark¬ 
ably different. Hor is it less incontrovertible that it is 
equally impossible to find two minds, as two counte¬ 
nances, which perfectly resemble each other. 

Considerations like these will be sufiicient to make 
it received as a truth not requiring farther demonstra¬ 
tion, that there must be a certain native analogy between 
the external varieties of the countenance and form, 
and the internal varieties of the mind. Anger renders 
the muscles protuberant; and shall not, therefore, an 
angry mind and protuberant muscles be considered as 
cause and effect ? 


4 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


After repeated observation, that an active and vivid 
eye, and an active and acute wit, are frequently found 
in the same person, shall it be supposed that there is no 
relation between the active eye and the active mind ? 
Is this the effect of accident? Ought it not rather to be 
considered as sympathy, an interchangeable and instan¬ 
taneous effect, when we perceive that, at the very moment 
the understanding is most acute and penetrating, and 
the wit the most lively, the motion and fire of the eye 
undergo, at that moment, the most visible alteration ? 

But all this is denied by those who oppose the truth of 
the science of physiognomy. Truth, according to them, 
is ever at variance with herself; eternal order is degraded 
to a juggler, whose purpose it is to deceive. 

Calm reason revolts when it is asserted that the strong 
man may appear perfectly like the weak, the man in full 
health like another in the last stage of a consumption, or 
that the rash and irascible resemble the cold and phleg¬ 
matic. It revolts to hear it affirmed that joy and grief, 
pleasure and pain, love and hatred, all exhibit themselves 
under the same traits—that is to say, under no traits 
whatever—on the exterior of man. Yet such are the 
assertions of those who maintain that physiognomy is a 
chimerical science. They overturn all that order and 
combination by which Eternal Wisdom so highly 
astonishes and delights the understanding. It cannot 
be too emphatically repeated, that blind chance and 
arbitrary disorder constitute the philosophy of fools, and 
that they are the bane of natural knowledge, philosophy, 
and religion. Entirely to banish such a system is the 
duty of the true inquirer, the sage, and the divine. 

It is indisputable that all men, absolutely all men, 
estimate all things whatever by their physiognomy, 


INTRODUCTION. 


5 


their exterior temporary superficies. By viewing these 
on every occasion, they draw their conclusions concern¬ 
ing their internal properties. What merchant, if he be 
unacquainted with the person of whom he purchases, 
does not estimate his wares by the physiognomy or 
appearance of those wares ? If he purchase of a distant 
correspondent, what other means does he use in judging 
whether they are or are not equal to his expectation ? Is 
not his judgment determined by the colour, the fineness, 
the superficies, the exterior, the physiognomy ? Does he 
not judge money by its physiognomy? Why does he 
take one guinea and reject another ? Why weigh a third 
in his hand ? Does he not determine according to its 
colour, or impression, its outside, its physiognomy ? If 
a stranger enter his shop as a buyer or seller, will he 
not observ^e him ? Will he not draw conclusions from 
his countenance ? Will he not, almost before he is out 
of hearing, pronounce some opinion of him, and say. 
This man has an honest look—this man has a pleasing 
or forbidding countenance ? ” What is it to the purpose 
whether his judgment be right or wrong ? He judges ; 
and though not wholly, he depends, in part, upon the 
exterior form, and thence draws inferences concerning 
the mind. 

The farmer, walking through his grounds, regulates 
his future expectations by the colour, the size, the 
growth, the exterior; that is to say, by the physiognomy 
of the bloom, the stalk, or the ear of his corn, the stem 
and shoots of his vine-tree. Tliis ear of corn is blighted 
—that w^ood is full of sap—this will grow, that not,” 
affirms he at the first or second glance. “ Though these 
vine-shoots look well, they will bear but few grapes.” 
And wherefore? He remarks in their appearance, as 


6 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the physiognomist in the countenances of shallow men, 
the want of native energy. Does he not judge by the 
exterior ? 

Does not the physician pay more attention to the 
physiognomy of the sick than to all the accounts that 
are brought him concerning his patient? Zimmerman, 
among the living, may be brought as a proof of the great 
perfection at which this kind of judgment is arrived; 
and, among the dead, Kempf, whose son has written a 
treatise on temperament. 

I will say nothing of the painter, as his art too evi¬ 
dently reproves the childish and arrogant prejudices 
of those who pretend to disbelieve physiognomy. The 
traveller, the philanthropist, the misanthropist, the 
lover, (and who not ?) all act according to their feelings 
and decisions, true or false, confused or clear, concerning 
physiognomy. These feelings, these decisions, excite 
compassion, disgust, joy, love, hatred, suspicion, con¬ 
fidence, reserve, or benevolence. 

By what rule do we judge of the sky but by its 
physiognomy? No food, not a glass of wine or beer, 
nor a cup of coffee or tea, comes to table, which is not 
judged by its physiognomy, its exterior, and of which 
we do not then deduce some conclusion respecting its 
interior good or bad properties. Is not all nature 
physiognomy, superficies and contents, body and spirit, 
exterior effect and internal power, invisible beginning 
and visible ending ? 

Physiognomy, whether understood in its most exten¬ 
sive or confined signification, is the origin of all human 
decisions, efforts, actions, expectations, fears, and hopes; 
ot all pleasing and unpleasing sensations, which are 
occasioned by external objects. Prom the cradle to the 


INTRODUCTION. 


7 


grave, in all conditions and ages, throughout all 
nations, from Adam to the last existing man, from the 
worm we tread on to the most sublime of philosophers, 
physiognomy is the origin of all we do and suffer. 

Every insect is acquainted with its friend and its foe; 
each child loves and fears, although it knows not why. 
Physiognomy is the cause: nor is there a man to be 
found on earth who is not daily influenced by physio¬ 
gnomy; not a man who cannot figure to himself a 
countenance which shall to him appear exceedingly 
lovely or exceedingly hateful; not a man who does not, 
more or less, the first time he is in company with a 
stranger, observe, estimate, compare, and judge of him 
according to appearances, although he might never have 
heard of the word or thing called physiognomy; not a 
man who does not judge of all things that pass through 
his hands by their physiognomy, that is, their internal 
worth by their external appearance. 

The act of dissimulation itself, which is adduced as so 
insuperable an objection to the truth of physiognomy, 
is founded upon physiognomy. Why does the hypocrite 
assume the appearance of an honest man, but because 
that he is convinced, though not perhaps from any 
systematic reflection, that all eyes are acquainted with 
the characteristic mark of honesty ? 

What judge, wise or unwise, whether the criminal 
confess or deny the fact, does not sometimes in this 
sense decide from appearances ? Who can, is, or ought 
to be absolutely indifferent to the exterior of persons 
brought before him to be judged? What king would 
choose a minister without examining his exterior, secretly 
at least, and to a certain extent ? An officer will not 
enlist a soldier without thus examining his appearance. 


8 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


putting his height out of the question. What master or 
mistress of a family will choose a servant without con¬ 
sidering the exterior ? No matter that their judgment 
may or “may not he just, or that it may be exercised 
unconsciously. 

I am weary of citing such numerous instances, which 
are so continually before our eyes, to prove that men, 
tacitly and unanimously, confess the influence which 
physiognomy has over their sensations and actions. I 
feel disgust at being obliged to write thus, in order to 
convince the learned of truths which lie within the reach 
of every child. 

Let him see who has eyes to see; but should the light, 
by being brought too close to his eyes, produce frenzy, he 
may burn himself by endeavouring to extinguish the 
torch of truth. I am not fond of using such expressions ; 
but I dare to do my duty, and my duty is boldly to 
declare that I believe myself certain of what I now and 
hereafter shall affirm; and that I think myself capable 
of convincing all lovers of truth, by principles which 
are in themselves incontrovertible. It is also necessary 
to confute the pretensions of certain literary despots, and 
to compel them to be more cautious in their decisions. 
It is therefore proved, it being an eternal and manifest 
truth, that, whether they are or are not sensible of it, all 
men are daily influenced by physiognomy; nay, there is 
not a living being which does not, at least after its 
manner, draw some inferences from the external to the 
internal; which does not judge concerning that which 
is not, by that which is apparent to the senses. 

This universal though tacit confession, that the 
exterior, the visible, the superficies of objects, indicate 
their nature, their properties, and that every outward 


INTRODUCTION. 


9 


sign is the symbol of some inherent quality, I hold to 
be equally certain and important to the science of 
physiognomy. 

When each apple, each apricot, has a physiognomy 
peculiar to itself, shall man, the lord of the earth, have 
none ? The most simple and inanimate object has its 
characteristic exterior, by which it is not only distin¬ 
guished as a species, but individually; and shall the 
first, noblest, best harmonized, and most beautiful being, 
be denied all characteristic ? 

Whatever may be objected against the truth and cer¬ 
tainty of the science of physiognomy by the most 
illiterate or the most learned; how much soever he, who 
openly professes faith in this science, may be subject to 
ridicule, to philosophic pity and contempt; it still cannot 
be contested, that there is no subject, thus considered, 
more important, more worthy of observation, more inte¬ 
resting than man, nor any occupation superior to that of 
disclosing the beauties and perfections of human nature. 

I shall now proceed to inquire into the advantages of 
physiognomy. Whether a more certain, more accurate, 
more extensive, and thereby a more perfect knowledge 
of man, be or be not profitable; whether it be or be not 
advantageous to gain a knowledge of internal qualities 
from external form and feature, is a question most de¬ 
serving of inquiry. This may be classed first as a general 
question, W^hether knowledge, its extension and increase, 
be of consequence to man ? 

Certain it is, that if a man has the power, faculties, and 
will to obtain wisdom, that he should exercise those 
faculties for the attainment of wisdom. How paradoxical 
are those proofs, that science and knowledge are detri¬ 
mental to man, and that a rude state of ignorance is to 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


10 

be preferred to all that wisdom can teacb! I here dare 
assert, that physiognomy has at least as many claims of 
essential advantage as are granted by men in general to 
other sciences. 

With how much justice may we not grant precedency 
to that science which teaches the knowledge of men! 
What object is so important to man as man himself? 
AVhat knowledge can more influence his happiness than 
the knowledge of himself? This advantageous know¬ 
ledge is the peculiar province of physiognomy. 

Whoever would wish perfect conviction of the advan¬ 
tages of physiognomy, let him imagine, but for a moment, 
that all physiognomical knowledge and sensation were 
lost to the world. What confusion, what uncertainty 
and absurdity must take place, in millions of instances, 
among the actions of men! How perpetual must be the 
vexation of the eternal uncertainty in all which we 
should have to transact with each other; and how in¬ 
finitely would probability, which depends upon a multi¬ 
tude of circumstances more or less distinctly perceived, 
be weakened by this privation! From how vast a 
number of actions, by which men are honoured and 
benefited, must they then desist 1 

Mutual intercourse is the thing of most consequence 
to mankind who are destined to live in society. The 
knowledge of man is the soul of this intercourse, that 
which imparts animation to it, pleasure, and profit. Let 
the physiognomist observe varieties, make minute dis¬ 
tinctions, establish signs, and invent words, to express 
these his remarks; form general abstract propositions ; 
extend and improve physiognomical knowledge, language, 
and sensation; and thus will the uses and advantages of 
physiognomy progressively increase. 


INTRODUCTION. 


n 


Physiognomy is a source of the purest, the most ex¬ 
alted sensations; an additional eye, wherewith to view 
the manifold proofs of Divine wisdom and goodness in 
the creation, and, while thus viewing unspeakable har¬ 
mony and truth, to excite more ecstatic love for their 
adorable Author. Where the dark, inattentive sight of 
the inexperienced perceives nothing, therV the practical 
view of the physiognomist discovers inexhaustj.ble foun¬ 
tains of delight, endearing, moral, and spiritual. With 
secret delight, the philanthropic physiognomist discerns 
those internal motives which would otherwise be first 
revealed in the world to come. He distinguishes what 
is permanent in the character from what is habitual, 
and wdiat is habitual from what is accidental. He, 
therefore, who reads man in this language, reads him 
most accurately. 

To enumerate all the advantages of physiognomy 
would require a large treatise. The most indisputable, 
though the most important of these, its advantages, are 
those the painter acquires, who, if he be not a physiog¬ 
nomist, is nothing. The greatest is that of forming, 
conducting, and improving the human heart. 

I shall now say something with respect to the dis¬ 
advantages of physiognomy. 

Methinks I hear some worthy man exclaim : “ 0 thou, 
who hast ever hitherto lived the friend of religion and 
virtue! what is thy present purpose ? What mischief 
shall not be wrought by this thy physiognomy ? Wilt 
thou teach man the unblessed art of judging his brother 
by the ambiguous expressions of his countenance ? Are 
there not already sufficient of censoriousness, scandal, 
and inspection into the failings of others ? Wilt thou 
teach man to read the secrets of the heart, the latent 
feelings, and the various errors of thought ? 


12 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


“ Thou dwellest upon the advantages of the science; 
sayest thou shalt teach men to contemplate the beauty 
of virtue, the hatefulness of vice, and by these means 
make them virtuous; and that thou inspirest us with an 
abhorrence of vice by obliging us to feel its external 
deformity. And what shall be the consequence ? Shall 
it not be, that for the appearance, and not the reality of 
goodness, man shall wish to be good ? that, vain as he 
already is, acting from the desire of praise, and wishing 
only to appear what he ought deterniinately to be, he 
will yet become more vain, and will court the praise of 
men, not by words and deeds alone, but by assumed 
looks and counterfeited forms? Oughtest thou not 
rather to weaken this already too powerful motive for 
human actions, and to strengthen a better; to turn the 
eyes inward, to teach actual improvement and silent 
innocence, instead of inducing him to reason on the out¬ 
ward fair expressions of goodness, or the hateful ones of 
wickedness ? ” 

This is a heavy accusation, and with great appearance 
of truth. Yet how easy is defence to me, and how 
pleasant, when my opponent accuses me from motives 
of philanthropy, and not of splenetic dispute! The 
charge is twofold, censoriousness and vanity. I will 
answer these charges separately; and now proceed to 
reply to the first objection. 

I teach no black art; no nostrum, the secret of which 
I might have concealed, which is a thousand times in¬ 
jurious for once that it is profitable, the discovery of 
which is therefore so difficult. I do but teach a science, 
the most general, the most palpable, with which all men 
are acquainted; and state my feelings, observations, and 
their consequences. 


INTRODUCTION. 


13' 


It ought never to be forgotten, that the very purport 
of outward expression is to teach what passes in the 
mind, and that to deprive man of this source of know¬ 
ledge were to reduce him to utter ignorance; that every 
man is horn with a certain portion of physiognomical 
sensation, as certainly as that every man who is not 
deformed is horn with two eyes; that all men, in their 
intercourse with each other, form physiognomical deci¬ 
sions according as their judgment is more or less clear; 
that it is well known, though physiognomy were never 
to be reduced to a science, most men, in proportion as they 
have mingled with the world, derive some profit from 
their knowledge of mankind, even at the first glance, 
and that the same effects were produced long before this 
question was in agitation. Whether, therefore, to teach 
men to decide with more perspicuity and certainty, 
instead of confusedly; to judge clearly with refined sen¬ 
sations, instead of rudely and erroneously with sensations 
more gross; and, instead of suffering them to wander in 
the dark, and venture abortive and injurious judgments, 
to learn them by physiognomical experiments, by the 
rules of prudence and caution, and the sublime voice of 
philanthrophy, to mistrust, to be diffident and slow to 
pronounce, where they imagine they discover evil: 
whether this, I say, can be injurious, I leave the world 
to determine. 

I think I may venture to affirm, that very few persons 
will, in consequence of this work, begin to judge ill of 
others who had not before been guilty of the practice. 

The second objection to physiognomy is, that ^4t 
renders men vain, and teaches them to assume a plausible 
appearance.” The men thou wouldst reform are not 
children who are good, and know that they are so j but 



14 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


men wlio must, from experience, learn to distinguish, 
between good and evil j men who, to become perfect, 
must necessarily be taught their own various, and con¬ 
sequently their own beneficent, qualities. Let, therefore, 
the desire of obtaining approbation from the good, act in 
concert with the impulse to goodness. Let this be thu 
ladder, or, if you please, the crutch, to support tottering 
virtue. Suffer men to feel that God has ever branded 
vice with deformity, and adorned virtue with inimitable , 
beauty. Allow man to rejoice when he perceives that 
his countenance improves in proportion as his heart is 
ennobled. Inform him only that to be good from vain 
motives is not actual good, but vanity; that the orna¬ 
ments of vanity wiU ever be inferior and ignoble; and 
that the dignified mien of virtue never can be truly 
attained but by the actual possession of virtue, unsullied 
by the leaven of vanity. 

Let me now say a word or two as to the ease and 
difficulties attending the study of physiognomy. To 
learn the lowest, the least difficult of sciences, at first 
appears an arduous undertaking, when taught by words 
or books, and not reduced to actual practice. "What 
numerous dangers and difficulties might be started 
against all the daily enterprises of men, were it not 
mideniable that they are performed with facility. How | 
might not the possibility of making a watch, and still ^ 
more a watch worn in a ring, or of sailing over the vast ; 
ocean, and of numberless other arts and inventions, be 
disputed, did we not behold them constantly practised ? ' 
How many arguments might be urged against the ^ 
practice of physic ? and, though some of them be unan¬ 
swerable, how many are the reverse? 

It is not just too hastily to decide on the possible ease 



INTRODUCTIOX. 


15 


or difficulty of any subject wliich we have not yet exa¬ 
mined. The simplest may abound with difficulties to 
him who has not made frequent experiments; and, by 
frequent experiments, the most difficult may become 
easy. 

Whoever possesses the slightest capacity for, and has 
once acquired the habit of, observation and comparison, 
should he see himself daily and incessantly surrounded 
by hosts of difficulties, yet he will certainly be able to 
make a progress. There is no study, however difficult, 
which may not be attained by perseverance and reso¬ 
lution. 

We have men constantly before us. In the very 
smallest towns there is a continual influx and reflux of 
persons of various and opposite characters : among these, 
many are known to us without consulting physiognomy; 
and that they are patient or choleric, credulous or suspi¬ 
cious, wise or foolish, of moderate or weak capacity, we 
are convinced past contradiction. Their countenances 
are as widely various as their characters, and these varie¬ 
ties of countenances may each be as accurately drawn as 
their varieties of character may be described. 

There are men with whom we have daily intercourse, 
and whose interests and ours are connected; be their 
dissimulation what it may, passion will frequently for a 
moment snatch off the mask, and give us a glance, at 
least a side-view, of their true form. 

Has Nature bestowed on man the eye and ear, and yet 
made her language so difficult, or so entirely unintelli¬ 
gible? And not the eye and ear alone, but feeling, 
nerves, internal sensations, and yet has rendered the 
language of the superficies so confused, so obscure ? She 
who has adapted sound to the ear, and the ear to sound; 




IG 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


slie who has created light for the eye, and the eye for 
light; she who has taught man so soon to speak, and to 
understand speech; shall she have imparted innumerable 
traits and marks of secret inclinations, powers, and pas¬ 
sions, accompanied by perception, sensation, and an im¬ 
pulse to interpret them to his advantage; and, after 
bestowing such strong incitements, shall she have denied 
him the possibility of quenching this his thirst of know¬ 
ledge ? She who has given him penetration to discover 
sciences still more profound, though of much inferior 
utility; who has taught him to trace out the paths and 
measure the curves of comets; who has put a telescope 
into his hand, that he may view the satellites of the 
planets, and has endowed him with the capability of cal¬ 
culating their eclipses through revolving ages; shall so 
kind a mother have denied her children—her truth¬ 
seeking pupils, her noble philanthropic offspring, who 
are so willing to admire and rejoice in the majesty of the 
Most High, viewing man his masterpiece—the power of 
reading the ever-present, ever-open book of the human 
countenance; of reading man, the most beautiful of all 
her works, the compendium of all things, the mirror of 
the Deity ? 

Awake! view man in all his infinite forms! Look, 
for thou mayest eternally learn; shake off thy sloth, and 
behold! Meditate on its importance; take resolution to 
thyself, and the most difficult shall become easy. 

Let me now mention the difficulties attending this 
study. There is a peculiar circumstance attending the 
starting of difficulties. There are some who possess the 
particular gift of discovering and inventing difficulties, 
without number or limits, on the most common and easy 
subjects. I shall be brief on the innumerable difficulties 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


of physiognomy; because, it not being my intention to 
cite them all in this place, the most important will occa¬ 
sionally be noticed and answered in the course of the 
work. I have an additional motive to be brief, which 
is, that most of these difiB.culties are included in the in¬ 
describable minuteness of innumerable traits of character, 
or the impossibility of seizing, expressing, and analyzing 
certain sensations and observations. 

Nothing can be more certain than that the smallest 
shades, which are scarcely discernible to an inexperiencd 
eye, frequently denote total opposition of character. How 
wonderfully may the expression of countenance and 
character be altered by a small inflexion or diminishing, 
lengthening or sharpening, even though but of a hair’s 
breadth! 

How difficult, how impossible, must this variety of 
the same countenance, even in the most accurate of the 
arts of imitation, render precision! How often does it 
happen that the seat of character is so hidden, so envel¬ 
oped, so masked, that it can only be caught in certain, 
and perhaps uncommon, positions of the countenance; 
which will again be changed, and the signs all disappear, 
before they have made any durable impression! or, sup¬ 
posing the impression made, these distinguishing traits 
may be so difficult to seize, that it shall be impossible to 
I paint, much less to engrave, or describe them by language, 
i It is with physiognomy as with all other objects of 
taste, literal or flgurative, of sense or of spirit. How 
I many thousand accidents, great and small, physical and 
moral; how many secret incidents, alterations, passions; 
how often will dress, position, light and shade, and innu- 
j raerable discordant circumstances, show the countenance 
so disadvantageous^, or, to speak more properly, betray 

c 



18 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the physiognomist into a false judgment on the true 
qualities of the countenance and character! How easily 
may these occasion him to overlook the essential traits 
of character, and form his judgment on what is wholly 
accidental! How surprisingly may the small-pox, during 
life, disfigure the countenance! How may it destroy, 
confuse, or render the most decisive traits imperceptible ! 

We will therefore grant the opposer of physiognomy 
aU he can ask, although we do not live without hope 
that many of the difficulties shall be resolved, which at 
first appeared to the reader and to the author inexpli¬ 
cable.* 

It is highly incumbent upon me that I should n(tt 
lead my readers to expect more from me than I am able 
to perform. Whoever publishes a considerable work on 
physiognomy, gives his readers apparently to understand 
that he is much better acquainted with the subject than 
any of his contemporaries. Should an error escape him, 
he exposes himself to the severest ridicule; he is con¬ 
temned, at least by those who do not read him, for pre¬ 
tensions which probably they suppose him to make, but 
which in reality he does not make. 

The God of truth, and all who know me, will bear 
testimony, that from my whole soul I despise deceit, as 
I do all silly claims to superior wisdom and infallibility, 
which so many writers, by a thousand artifices, endeavoui 
to make their readers imagine they possess. 

First, therefore, I declare, what I have uniformly 
declared on all occasions, although the persons who 
speak of me and my works endeavour to conceal it from 
themselves and others, that I understand but little of 

* The following lines, to the end of the Introduction, contain Mr. 
Lavater’s own remarks on himself. 


INTEODUCTION. 


19 


physiognomy; that I have been, and continue daily to 
be, mistaken in my judgment; hut these errors are the 
most natural and most certain means of correcting, con¬ 
firming, and extending my knowledge. 

It will probably not be disagreeable to many of my 
readers to be informed, in part, of the progress of my 
mind in this study. 

Before I reached the twenty-fifth year of my age, there 
was nothing I should have supposed more improbable 
than that I should make the smallest inquiries concern¬ 
ing, much less that I should write a book on, physio¬ 
gnomy. I was neither inclined to read nor make the 
slightest observations on the subject. The extreme sen¬ 
sibility of my nerves occasioned me, however, to feel 
certain emotions at beholding certain countenances. 1 
sometimes instinctively formed a judgment according to 
these first impressions, and was laughed at, ashamed, 
and became cautious. Years passed away before I again 
dared, impelled by similar impressions, to venture similar 
opinions. In the meantime I occasionally sketched the 
countenance of a friend, whom by chance I had lately 
been observing. I had, from my earliest youth, a pro¬ 
pensity to drawing, and especially to drawing of por¬ 
traits, although I had but little genius or perseverance. 
By this practice my latent feelings began partly to un¬ 
fold themselves. The various proportions, similitudes, 
and varieties of the human countenance became more 
apparent. It has happened that, on two successive 
days, I have drawn two faces, the features of which had 
a remarkable resemblance. This awakened my atten¬ 
tion ; and my astonishment increased when I received 
certain proofs that these persons were as similar in 
character as in feature. 


20 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


I was afterwards induced by M. Zimmerman, physi¬ 
cian to the court of Hanover, to write my thoughts on 
this subject. I met with many opponents; and this 
opposition obliged me to make deeper and more laborious 
researches, tOl at length the present work on physio¬ 
gnomy was produced. 

Here I must repeat the full conviction I feel, that my 
whole life would be insufficient to form any approach 
towards a perfect and consistent whole. It is a field too 
vast for me singly to till. I shall find various opportu¬ 
nities of confessing my deficiency in various branches of 
science, without which it is impossible to study physio¬ 
gnomy with that firmness and certainty which are requi¬ 
site. I shall conclude by declaring, with unreserved 
candour, and wholly committing myself to the reader 
who is the friend of truth,— 

That I have heard, from the weakest men, remarks on 
the human countenance more acute than those I had 
made; remarks which made mine appear trifling. 

That I beheve, were various other people to sketch 
countenances and write their observations, those I have 
hitherto made would soon become of little importance. 

That I daily meet an hundred faces concerning which 
I am unable to pronounce any certain opinion. 

That no man has any thing to fear from my inspection, 
as it is my endeavour to find good in man; nor are there 
any men in whom good is not to be found. 

That since I have begun thus to observe mankind, my 
philanthropy is not diminished, but, I will venture to 
say, increased. 

And that now (January, 1783), after ten years' daily 
study, I am not more convinced of the certainty of my 
own existence than of the truth of the science of physio- 


THE NATURE OF MAN. 


21 


gnomy, or than that this truth may he demonstrated; 
and that I hold him to be a weak and simple person 
who shall affirm that the effects of the impressions made 
upon him by all possible human countenances are equal. 


CHAPTEK IL 

On the nature of Man, which is the foundation of the 
science of Physiognomy—Difference between Physio¬ 
gnomy and Pathognomy. 

Man is the most perfect of all earthly creatures, the 
most imbued with the principles of life. Each particle 
of matter is an immensity, each leaf a world, each insect 
an inexplicable compendium. Who, then, shall enume¬ 
rate the gradations between insect and man ? In him 
all the powers of nature are united. He is the essence 
of creation. The son of earth, he is the earth’s lord; the 
summary and central point of all existence, of all powers, 
and of all life, on that earth which he inhabits. 

There are no organized beings with which we are 
acquainted, man alone excepted, in which are so won¬ 
derfully united these different kinds of life, the animal, 
the intellectual, and the moral. Each of these lives is 
the compendium of various faculties most wonderfully 
compounded and harmonized. 

To know, to desire, to act, or accurately to observe 
and meditate, to perceive and to wish, to possess the 
power of motion and resistance—these, combined, con¬ 
stitute man an animal, intellectual, and moral being. 

Endowed with these faculties, and with this triple 
life, man is in himself the most worthy subject of obser¬ 
vation, as he likewise is himself the most worthy observer 



22 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


In him each species of life is conspicuous; yet never can 
his properties be wholly known except by the aid of his 
external form, his body, his superficies. How spiritual, 
how incorporeal soever his internal essence may be, still 
is he only visible and conceivable from the harmony of 
his constituent parts. From these he is inseparable. 
He exists and moves in the body he inhabits as in his 
element. This threefold life, which man cannot be 
denied to possess, necessarily first becomes the subject 
of disquisition and research as it presents itself in the 
form of body, and in such of his faculties as are apparent 
to sense. 

By such external appearances as affect the senses, 
aU things are characterised; they are the foundations of 
all human knowledge. Man must wander in the darkest 
ignorance, equally with respect to himself and the 
objects that surround him, did he not become acquainted 
with their properties and powers by the aid of their 
externals; and had not each object a character peculiar 
to its nature and essence, which acquaints us with what 
it is, and enables us to distinguish it from what it is not. 

We survey all bodies that appear to sight under a 
certain form and superficies ; we behold those outlines 
traced which are the result of their organization. I 
hope I shall be pardoned the repetition of common-place 
truths, since on these is built the science of physio¬ 
gnomy, or the proper study of man. 

The organization of man peculiarly distinguishes him 
from all other earthly beings; and his physiognomy, 
that is to say, his superficies and outlines of this organi¬ 
zation, show him to be infinitely superior to all those 
visible beings by which he is surrounded. We are un¬ 
acquainted with any form equally noble, equally 


THE NATURE OF MAN. 


23 


majestic, with that of man; and in which so many kinds 
of life, so many powers, so many virtues of action and 
motion, unite as in a central point. With firm step he 
advances over the earth’s surface, and with erect body 
he raises his head to heaven. He looks forward to 
infinitude; he acts with facility and swiftness incon¬ 
ceivable, and his motions are the most immediate and 
the most varied. By whom may their varieties be 
enumerated ? He can at once both suffer and perform 
infinitely more than any other creature. He unites 
flexibility and fortitude, strength and dexterity, activity 
and rest. Of all creatures he can the soonest yield, and 
the longest resist. Hone resemble him in the variety 
and harmony of his powers. His faculties, like his form, 
are peculiar to himself. 

The make and proportion of man, his superior height, 
capable of so many changes and such variety of motion, 
prove to the unprejudiced observer his superior emi¬ 
nent strength, and astonishing facility of action. The 
high excellence and physiological unity of human nature, 
are visible at the first glance. The head, especially the 
face and the formation of the firm parts, compared to 
the firm parts of other animals, convince the accurate 
observer who is capable of investigating truth, of the 
greatness and superiority of his intellectual qualities. 
The eye, the look, the cheeks, the mouth, the forehead, 
whether considered in a state of entire rest, or during 
their innumerable varieties of motion—in fine, whatever 
is understood by physiognomy—are the most expressive, 
the most convincing picture of interior sensation, desires, 
passions, will, and of all those properties which so much 
exalt moral above animal life. 

Although the physiological, intellectual, and moral 


24 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


life of man, with all their subordinate powers and their 
constituent parts, so eminently unite in one being; al¬ 
though these three kinds of life do not, like three 
distinct families, reside in separate parts or stories of 
the body, hut coexist in one point, and by their com¬ 
bination form one whole; yet it is plain that each of 
these powers of life has its peculiar station where it 
more especially unfolds itself and acts. 

It is beyond contradiction evident, that, though phy¬ 
siological or animal life displays itself through all the 
body, and especially through all the animal parts, yet it 
acts more conspicuously in the arm, from the shoulder 
to the ends of the fingers. 

It is not less evident that intellectual life, or the 
power of the understanding and the mind, make them¬ 
selves most apparent in the circumference and form of 
the solid parts of the head, especially.the forehead; 
though they will discover themselves to an attentive 
and accurate eye in every part and point of the human 
body, by the congeniality and harmony of the various 
parts. Is there any occasion to prove that the power 
of thinking resides neither in the foot, in the hand, 
nor in the back, but in the head and in its internal 
parts ? 

The moral life of man particularly reveals itself in the 
lines, marks, and transitions of the countenance. His 
moral powers and desires; his irritability, sympathy, 
and antipathy; his facility of attracting or repelling the 
objects that surround him : these are all summed up in, 
and painted upon his countenance when at rest. When 
any passion is called into action, such passion is depicted 
by the motion of the muscles, and these motions are 
accompanied by a strong palpitation of the heart. If the 


THE NATURE OF 3IAN. 


25 


countenance be tranquil, it always denotes tranquillity 
in the region of the heart and breast. 

This threefold life of man, so intimately interwoven 
through his frame, is still capable of being studied in 
its different appropriate parts; and, did we live in a less 
depraved world, we should find sufficient data for the 
science of physiognomy. 

The animal life, the lowest and most earthly, would 
discover itself from the rim of the belly to the organs of 
generation, which would become its central or focal 
point. The middle or moral life would be seated in the 
breast, and the heart would be its central point. The 
intellectual life, which of the three is supreme, would 
reside in the head, and have the eye for its centre. If 
we take the countenance as the representative and epi¬ 
tome of the three divisions, then will the forehead to 
the eyebrows be the mirror or image of the understand¬ 
ing; the nose and cheeks, the image of the moral and 
sensitive life; and the mouth and chin, the image of the 
animal life; while the eye will be to the whole as its 
summary and centre. 

All that has been hitherto advanced is so clear, so 
well known, so universal, that we should blush to insist 
upon such common-place truths, were they not, first, the 
foundation on which we must build all we have to pro¬ 
pose ; and, again, had not these truths (can it be believed 
by futurity ?) in this our age been so many thousand 
times mistaken and contested with the most inconceiv¬ 
able affectation. 

The science of physiognomy, whether understood in 
the most enlarged or most confined sense, indubitably 
depends on these general and incontrovertible principles; 
yet, incontrovertible as they are, they have not been 


26 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


without their opponents. Men pretend to doubt of the 
most striking, the most convincing, the most seK-evident 
truths; although, were these destroyed, neither truth nor 
knowledge would remain. They do not profess to doubt 
concerning the physiognomy of other natural objects; 
yet do they doubt the physiognomy of human nature— 
the first object the most worthy of contemplation, and 
the most animated the realms of nature contain. 

We have already hinted to our readers, that they are 
to expect only fragments on physiognomy from us, and 
not a perfect system. However, what has been said 
may serve as a sketch for such a system. We shall 
conclude this chapter with showing the difference be¬ 
tween Physiognomy and Pathognomy. 

Physiognomy is the science or knowledge of the cor¬ 
respondence between the external and internal marL, the 
visible superficies and the invisible contents. Physio¬ 
gnomy, opposed to pathognomy, is the knowledge of the 
signs of the powers and inclinations of men—pathognomy 
is the knowledge of the signs of the passions. Physio¬ 
gnomy therefore teaches the knowledge of character at 
rest, and pathognomy of character in motion. Character 
at rest, is taught by the form of the solid and the appear¬ 
ance of the moveable parts while at rest. Character 
impassioned, is manifested by the moveable parts in 
motion. 

Physiognomy may be compared to the sum-total of 
the mind; pathognomy, to the interest which is the pro¬ 
duct of this sum-total. The former shows what man is 
in general, the latter what he becomes at particular 
moments; or, the one what he might be, the other what 
he is. The first is the root and stem of the second, the 
soil in which it is planted. Whoever believes the latter 


SIGNS OF STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS. 


27 


and not the former, believes in fruit without a tree, in 
corn without land. 


CHAPTER HI. 

Signs of Bodily Strength and Weakness—Of Health 
and Sickness. 

We call that human body strong which can easily 
alter other bodies without being easily altered itself 
The more immediately it can act, and the less immedi¬ 
ately it can be acted upon, the greater is its strength; and 
the weaker, the less it can act or withstand the action of 
others. There is a tranquil strength, the essence of 
which is immobility; and there is an active strength, 
the essence of which is motion. The one has motion, 
the other stability, in an extraordinary degree. There 
is the strength of the rock and the elasticity of the 
spring. 

There is the Herculean strength of bones and sinews; 
thick, firm, compact, and immoveable as a pillar. 

There are heroes less Herculean, less firm, sinewy, 
large; less set, less rocky; who yet, when roused, when 
opposed in their activity, wiR meet oppression with so 
much strength, will resist weight with such elastic force, 
as scarcely to be equalled by the most muscular strength. 

The elephant has native, bony strength. Irritated or 
not, he bears prodigious burdens, and crushes all on 
which he treads. An irritated wasp has strength of a 
totally different kind; but both have compactness for 
their foundation, and especially the firmness of con¬ 
struction. Ail porosity destroys strength. 

The strength, like the understanding of a man, is 



28 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


discovered by its being more or less compact. The 
elasticity of a body has signs so remarkable, that they 
will not permit ns to confound such body with one that 
is not elastic. How manifest are the varieties of strength 
between the foot of an elephant and a stag, a wasp and 
a fly! 

Tranquil, firm strength, is shown in the proportions 
of the form, which ought rather to be short than long. 
In the thick neck, the broad shoulders, and the counte¬ 
nance, which, in a state of health, is rather bony than 
fleshy. In the short, compact, and knotty forehead; 
and especially when the sinus frontales are visible, but 
not too far projecting; flat in the middle, or suddenly 
indented, but not in smooth cavities. In horizontal eye¬ 
brows, situated near the eye. Deep eyes and steadfast 
look. In the broad, firm nose, bony near the forehead, 
especially in its straight angular outlines. In short, 
thick, curly hair of the head and beard; broad teeth, 
standing close to each other. In compact lips, of which 
the under rather projects than retreats. In the strong, 
prominent, broad chin. In the strong, projecting os 
occijpitis. In the bass voice, the firm step, and in sitting 
still. 

Elastic strength, the living power of irritability, must 
be discovered in the moment of action; and the firm 
signs must afterwards be abstracted when the irritated 
power is once more at rest. “ This body, therefore, which 
at rest was capable of so little, acted and resisted so 
weakly, can, thus irritated, and with this degree of 
tension, become thus powerful.” We shall find on 
inquiry that this strength, awakened by irritation, 
generally resides in thin, tall, but not very tall, and 
bony rather than muscular bodies; in bodies of dark or 


SIGNS OF STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS. 29 

pale complexions; of rapid motion, joined with a certain 
kind of stiffness ; of hasty and firm walk; of fixed pene¬ 
trating look; and with open lips, but easily and accu¬ 
rately to be closed. 

Signs ofVeakness are, disproportionate length of body; 
much flesh; little bone; extension; a tottering frame; 
a loose skin; round, obtuse, and particularly hollow out¬ 
lines of the forehead and nose; smallness of nose and 
chin;-little nostrils ; the retreating chin; long, cylindri¬ 
cal neck; the walk very hasty or languid, without 
firmness of step; the timid aspect; closing eyelids; 
open mouth; long teeth; the jawbone long, but bent 
towards the ear; whiteness of complexion; teeth inclined 
to be yellow or green; fair, long, and tender hair; shrill 
voice. 

I shall now proceed to consider Medicinal Semeiotics, 
or the signs of health and sickness. Not I, but an experi¬ 
enced physician, ought to write on the physiognomical 
and pathognomical semeiotica of health and sickness, 
and describe the physiological character of the body, 
and its propensities to this or that disorder. I am beyond 
description ignorant with respect to the nature of dis¬ 
orders and their signs: still may I, in consequence of 
the few observations I have made, declare with some 
certainty, by repeatedly examining the firm parts and 
outlines of the bodies and countenances of the sick, that 
it is not difficult to predict what are the diseases to 
which the man in health is most liable. 

Of what infinite importance would such physiognomi¬ 
cal semeiotics, or prognostics of possible or probable 
disorders, be, founded on the nature and form of the 
body ! How essential were it, could the physician say to 
the healthy, “You naturally have, some time in your life. 


30 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


to expect this or that disorder. Take the necessary pre¬ 
cautions against such or such a disease. The virus of 
the small-pox slumbers in your body, and may thus or 
thus be put in motion: thus the hectic, thus the inter¬ 
mittent, and thus the putrid fever.” Oh, how worthy, 
Zimmerman, would a treatise on physiognomical dioetetice 
(or regimen) be of thee! 

Whoever shall read this author’s work on eocfperimce, 
will see how characteristically he describes various dis¬ 
eases which originate in the passions. Some quotations 
from this work, which will justify my wish, and contain 
the most valuable semeiotical remarks, cannot be unac¬ 
ceptable to the reader:— 

“ The observing mind examines the physiognomy of 
the sick, the signs of which extend over the whole body; 
but the progress and change of the disease is principally 
to be found in the countenance and its parts. Some¬ 
times the patient carries the marks of his disease; in 
burning, bilious, and hectic fevers; in the chlorosis; the 
common and black jaundice; in worm cases.” I, who 
know so little of physic, have several times discovered 
the disease of the tape-worm in the countenance. 

In the furor uterinus the least observant can read 
the disease. The more the countenance is changed in 
burning fevers, the greater is the danger. A man whose 
natural aspect is imld and calm, but who stares at me, 
with a florid complexion, and wildness in his eyes, prog¬ 
nosticates an approaching delirium. I have likewise 
seen a look indescribably wild, accompanied by paleness, 
when nature, in an inflammation of the lungs, was com¬ 
ing to a crisis, and the patient was becoming excessively 
cold and frantic. The countenance relaxed, the lips 
pale and hanging, in burning fevers, are bad symptoms. 


i 


SIGNS OF HEALTH AND SICKNESS. 


31 


as they denote great debility; and if the change and 
decay of the countenance be sudden, the danger is great. 
When the nose is pointed, the face of a lead colour, and 
the lips livid, inflammation has produced gangrene. 

“There is frequently something dangerous to he 
observed in the countenance, which cannot be known 
from other symptoms, and which yet is very signiflcant. 
Much is to be observed in the eyes. Boerhaave 
examined the eyes of the patient with a magnifying glass, 
that he might see if the blood entered the smaller 
vessels. Hippocrates held that the avoiding of light, 
involuntary tears, squinting, one eye less than the other, 
the white of the eye inflamed, the small veins inclined 
to be black, too much swelled, or too much sunken, 
were each and all bad symptoms. 

“ The motion of the patient, and his position in bed, 
ought likewise to be enumerated among the particular 
symptoms of disease. The hand carried to the forehead, 
waved, or groping in the air, scratching on the wall, and 
pulling up the bed-clothes, are of this kind. The 
position in bed is a very significant sign of the internal 
situation of the patient, and therefore deserves every 
attention. The more unusual the position is in any 
inflammatory disease, the more certainly we may con¬ 
clude that the anguish is great, and consequently the 
danger. Hippocrates has described the position of the 
sick in such cases with an accuracy that leaves nothing 
to be desired. The best position in sickness is the usual 
position in health.” 

I shall add some other remarks from this physician 
and physiognomist, whose abilities are superior to envy, 
ignorance, and quackery. “ Swift was lean while he was 
the prey of ambition, chagrin, and ill-temper; but, after 


32 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the loss of his understanding, he became fat.” His de¬ 
scription of envy, and its effects on the body, is incompa¬ 
rable :—“ The effects of envy^are visible, even in children. 
They become thin, and easily faU into consumptions. 
Envy takes away the appetite and sleep, and causes 
feverish motion ; it produces gloom, shortness of breath, 
impatience, restlessness, and a narrow chest. The good 
name of others, on which it seeks to avenge itself by 
slander, and feigned but not real contempt, hangs like 
the sword suspended by a hair over the head of envy, 
that continually wishes to torture others, and is itself 
continually on the rack. The laughing simpleton be¬ 
comes disturbed as soon as envy, that worst of fiends, 
takes possession of him, and he perceives that he vainly 
labours to debase that merit which he cannot rival. His 
eyes roll, he knits his forehead, he becomes morose, 
peevish, and hangs his lips. There is, it is true, a kind 
of envy that arrives at old age. Envy in her dark cave, 
possessed by toothless furies, there hoards her poison, 
which, with infernal wickedness, she endeavours to eject 
over each worthy person and honourable act. She de¬ 
fends the cause of vice, endeavours to confound right 
and wrong, and vitally wounds the purest innocence.” 


CHAPTEE IV. 

Of the Congeniality of the Human Form. 

The same vital powers that make the heart beat, give 
motion to the finger; that which roofs the skull, arches 
the finger-naQ. Art is at variance with herself: not so 
Nature. Her creation is progressive. From the head 
to the back, from the shoulder to the arm, from the arm 



CONGEI^IALITY OF THE HUMAJ? FORM. 33 

to the hand, and from the hand to the finger; from the 
root to the stem, the stem to the branch, the branch to 
the twig, the twig to the blossom and fruit, each depends 
on the other, and all on the root: each is similar in 
nature and form. There is a determinate effect of a 
determinate power. Through all nature each deter¬ 
minate power is productive only of such and such 
determinate effects. The finger of one body is not 
adapted to the hand of another body. Each part of an 
organized body is an image of the whole. The blood in 
the extremity of the finger has the character of the blood 
in the heart. The same congeniality is found in the 
nerves, in the bones. One spirit lives in alL Each 
member of the body is in proportion to that whole of 
which it is a part. As from the length of the smallest 
member, the smallest joint of the finger, the proportion 
of the whole, the length and breadth of the body, may 
be found; so also may the form of the whole from the 
form of each single part. When the head is long aU is 
long, or round when the head is round, or square when 
it is square. One form, one mind, one root, appertain to 
all: therefore is each organized body so much a whole, 
that, without discord, destruction, or deformity, nothing 
can be added or diminished. 

Every thing in man is progressive; every thing con¬ 
genial; form, stature, complexion, hair, skin, veins, 
nerves, bones, voice, walk, manner, style, passion, love, 
hatred. One and the same spirit is manifest in all He 
has a determinate sphere in which his powers and 
sensations are allowed, within which they may be freely 
exercised, but beyond which he cannot pass. Each 
countenance is indeed subject to momentary change, 
though not perceptible, even in its solid parts; but 

D 


34 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


these changes are all proportionate: each is measured, 
each proper and peculiar to the countenance in which it 
takes place. The capability of change is limited. Even 
that which is affected, assumed, imitated, heterogeneous, 
stni has the properties of the individual originating in 
the nature of the whole, and is so definite that it is only 
possible in this, but in no other being. 

I almost blush to repeat this in the present age. 
What, Posterity, wilt thou suppose, thus to see me so 
often obliged to demonstrate to pretended sages that 
nature makes no emendation ? She labours from one 
to alL Hers is not disjointed organization nor mosaic 
work. The more there is of the mosaic in the works of 
artists, orators, or poets, the less are they natural; the 
less do they resemble the copious streams of the foun¬ 
tain ; the stem extending itself to the remotest branch. 

The more there is of progression, the more there is of 
truth, power, and nature; the more extensive, general, 
durable, and noble is the effect. The designs of nature 
are the designs of a moment; one form, one spirit, appear 
through the whole. Thus nature forms her least plant, 
and thus her most exalted man. I shall have effected 
nothing by my physiognomical labours, if I am not able 
to destroy that opinion, so tasteless, so unworthy of the 
age, so opposite to all sound philosophy, that nature 
patches up the features of various countenances, in order 
to make one perfect countenance; and I shall think 
them well rewarded, if the congeniality, uniformity, and 
agreement of human organization be so demonstrated, 
that he who shall deny it will be declared to deny the 
light of the sun at noonday. 

The human body is a plant, each part of which has 
the character of the stem. Suffer me to repeat this con- 


^ CONGENIALITY OF THE HUMAN FORM. 35 

tinually, since this most evident of all things is continu¬ 
ally controverted, among all ranks of men, in words, 
deeds, books, and works of art. I, therefore, find the 
greatest incongruities in the heads of the greatest masters. 
I know no painter of whom I can say he has thoroughly 
studied the harmony of the human outline, not even 
Poussin—^no, not even Eaphael himself. Let any one 
class the forms of their countenances, and compare them 
with the forms of nature. Let him, for instance, draw 
the outlines of their foreheads, and endeavour to find 
similar outlines in nature, and he will find incongruities 
which could not have been expected in such great 
masters. 

Chodowiecki, excepting the too great length and 
extent, particularly of his human figures, perhaps had 
the most exact feeling of congeniality in caricature; that 
is to say, of the relative propriety of the deformed, the 
humorous, or other characteristical members and features. 
Por as there is conformity and congeniality in the beau¬ 
tiful, so is there also in the deformed. Every cripple 
has the distortion peculiar to himself, the effects of which 
are extended to his whole body. In like manner, the 
evil actions of the evil, and the good actions of the good, 
have a conformity of character; at least they are all 
tinged with thisiconformity of character. 

Little as this seems to be remarked by poets and 
painters, stiU is it the foundation of their art; for wher¬ 
ever emendation is visible, there admiration is at an end. 
Why has no painter yet been pleased to place the blue 
eye beside the brown one ? Yet, absurd as this w^ould 
be, no less absurd are the incongruities continually en¬ 
countered by the physiognomical eye—the nose of Venus 
on the head of Madona. I have been assured by a man 

I 

I' 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


S6 

of fashion, that at a masquerade, with only the aid of an 
artificial nose, he entirely concealed himself from the 
knowledge of all his acquaintance. So much does nature 
reject what does not appertain to herself. 

I have never yet met with one Eoman nose among a 
hundred circular foreheads in profile. In a hundred 
other square foreheads, I have scarcely found one in 
which there were not cavities and prominences. I never 
yet saw a perpendicular forehead with strongly arched 
features in the lower part of the countenance, the double 
chin excepted. 

I meet no strong-bowed eyebrows combined with 
bony perpendicular countenances. 

Wherever the forehead is projecting, so in general are 
the under lips, children excepted. 

I have never seen gently arched, yet much retreating 
foreheads, combined with a short snub nose, which in 
profile is sharp and sunken. 

A visible nearness of the nose to the eye, is always 
attended by a visible wideness between the nose and 
mouth. 

A long covering of the teeth, or, in other words, a long 
space between the nose and mouth, always indicates 
small upper lips. Length of form and face is generally 
attended by well-drawn fleshy lips. ^ 

I shall at present produce but one more example, 
which will convince all who possess acute physiognomi¬ 
cal sensation, how great is the harmony of all nature’s 
forms, and Ilbw much she hates the incongruous. 

Take two, three, or four shades of men remarkable for 
understanding; join the features so artificially that no 
defect shall appear as far as relates to the act of joining; 
that is, take the forehead of one, add the nose of a 



CONGENIALITY OF THE HUMAN FORM. 37 

licond, the mouth of a third, the chin of a fourth, and 
le result of this combination of the signs of wisdom 
'all be folly. Tolly is, perhaps, nothing more than the 
ndation of some heterogeneous addition. " But let 
^hese four wise countenances be supposed congruous.” 
Let them so be supposed, or as nearly so as possible, still 
their combination will produce the signs of folly. 

Those, therefore, who maintain that conclusion can¬ 
not be drawn from a part, from a single section of the 
profile, to the whole, would be perfectly right if un- 
arbitrary nature patched up countenances like arbitrary 
art; but so she does not. Indeed, when a man, being 
born with -understanding, becomes a fool, there expression 
of heterogeneousness is the consequence. Either the 
lower part of the countenance extends itself, or the eyes 
acquire a direction not conformable to the forehead, the 
mouth cannot remain closed, or the features of the 
countenance, in some other manner, lose their consistency: 
fill becomes discord; and folly, in such a countenance, is 
very manifest. Let him who would study physiognomy 
study the relation of the constituent parts of the coun¬ 
tenance: not having studied these, he has studied 
nothing. 

He only is an accurate physiognomist, and has the 
true spirit of physiognon^, who possesses sense, feeling, 
^ and sympathetic proportion of the congeniality and 
harmony of nature; and who hath a similar sense and 
eling for all emendations and additions of art and 
-nstraint. He is no physiognomist who dbubts of the 
i, proj)riety, simplicity, and harmony of nature, or who 
i has not this physiognomical essential; who supposes 
j' nature selects members to form a whole, as a compositor 
) in a printing-office does letters to make up a word; who 


38 


LAVATER S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


can suppose the works of nature are tlie patchwork \ 
harlequin jacket. Not the most insignificant of inse , 
is so compounded, much less man, the most perfec ^ 
organized beings. He respires not the breath of wisd 
who doubts of this progression, continuity, and simpli< * J 
of the structure of nature. He wants a general fei , * j 

for the works of nature; consequently of art, the ir * J 

tor of nature. I shall be pardoned this warmth. lu J 
necessary. The consequences are infinite, and extend J 
all things. He has the master-key of truth who In i 
this sensation of the congeniality of nature, and, b < 
necessary induction, of the human form. i 

All imperfection in works of art, productions of t. f* 
mind, moral actions, errors in judgment; all scepticisi J 
infidelity, and ridicule of religion, naturally originate i 1 
the want of this knowledge and sensation. He soar. 3 
above all doubt of the Divinity and Christ who hatl I 
them, and who is conscious of this congeniality. He alsc 
who, at first sight, thoroughly understands and feels the 
congeniality of the human form, and that from the want 
of this congeniality arises the difference observed between 
the works of nature and of art, is superior to aU doubt , 
concerning the truth and divinity of the human coun- ; 
teiiance. 

Those who have this sense,^his feeling, call it which * 
you please, will attribute that only, and nothing more, 
to each countenance which it is capable of receiving. ^ 
They will consider each according to its kind, and will • 
as little seek to add a heterogeneous character as o 
heterogeneous nose to the face. Such wiU only unfold l 
what nature is desirous of unfolding, give what nature j 
is capable of receiving, and take away that with which \ 
nature would not be encumbered. They will perceive in | 


DESCRIPTION OF PLATES. 39 

jilie cMd, pupil, friend, or wife, when any discordant 
.trait of character makes its appearance; and will 
jendeavour tP restore the original congeniality, the 
equHibrium of character and impulse, by acting upon 
,the still remaining harmony, by co-operating with the 
. vet unimpaired essential powers. They will consider 
,^ieach sin, each vice, as destructive of this harmony; 

will feel how much each departure from truth in the 
,j. human form, at least to eyes more penetrating than 
human eyes are, must be manifest, must distort, and 
must become displeasing to the Creator, by rendering it 
tmlike his image. Who, therefore, can judge better of 
j the works and actions of man; who less offend or be 
offended; who more clearly develop cause and effect, 

. j than the physiognomist, possessed of a full portion of 
^ this Knowledge and sensation ? 

X _ 

CHAPTER V. 

$ 

; JDescri^tioTi of Plates I. and II. 

We shall occasionally introduce some figures, in order 
to support and elucidate those opinions and propositions 
which may be advanced. These plates refer to objects 
that have been already alluded to in the preceding 
pages. 

Description of Plate I. Number I. 

This is a boldly sketched portrait of Albert Durer. 
Wlioever examines this countenance cannot but perceive 
in it the traits of fortitude, deep penetration, determined 
perseverance, and inventive genius. At least, every one 
will acknowledge the truth of these observations when 
/ made. 



40 


lavater’s physiognomy. 

Number 2. Fap. Moncrif. 

There are few men capable of observation who will 
class this visage with the stupid. In the aspect, the eye, 
the nose especially, and the mouth, are proofs, not to be 
mistaken, of the accomplished gentleman and the man 
of taste. 

Number 3. Db. Samuel Johnson. 

The most unpractised eye will easily discover in this 
sketch of Johnson, the acute, the comprehensive, the 
capacious mind, not easily deceived, and rather inclined 
to suspicion than credulity. 

Number 4 W. Shakspeare. 

How deficient must aU outlines be! Among ten 
thousand can one be found that is exact ? "Where is the 
outline that can portray genius? Yet, who does not 
read in this outline, imperfect as it is, from pure physio¬ 
gnomical sensation, the clear, the capacious, the rapid 
, mind, all conceiving, all embracing that, with equal 
swiftness and facdity, imagines, creates, produces ? 

Number 5. L. Sterne. 

The most unpractised reader in physiognomy will not 
deny to this countenance all the keen, the searching 
penetration of wit, the most original fancy, full of fire, 
and the powers of invention. Who is so dull as not to 
view in this countenance somewhat of the spirit of poor 
Yorick ? 

Number 6. S. Clarke. 

Perspicuity, benevolence, dignity, serenity, dispas¬ 
sionate meditation, the powers of conception and perse¬ 
verance, are the most apparent characteristics of this 






■ t u'- 

■ 


•V.. 





v'/*. 

• VI 


'.f 


iLc 


>1 


'«* 




4 ^ 


•^^^ 


<j -■ 


■V- 





(. 




- *’ 


* f 


f. 


I« >. 




Si 


• i 












-. ) 


> . 







> , .r ' y,'. /_ yjf/. • 


*••^1 




» 


A. 




•■. ’ *. .' jjt 












f-y.' 




'LL!^' ^‘- 



. t 





*■• * 


- >- >» 

-A» . ' 





,r.«r 

’ i'- .& J 




-•f • 



V. 7- v* 


• >• 


1, 


■ ^v»W y.. 


f. 




.1 * 


»»>.s. 


v- . y ;•- ’ti 


;* •', V 


% 



«■ 


1 • 






t » 


• -J. 


■*.» • ^ 


# 


•/ 


•. ‘;- 


#• 







V - • 1 ^ < 



I 


























































DESCHIPTION OF PLATES. 


41 


cpuntenance. He who can hate such a face, must labo- 
tiously counteract all those physiognomical sensations 
mth which he was horn. 

Description of Plate II. 

Hitherto we have beheld nature in the most perfect 
of her productions : we must now view the reverse : we 
m ist proceed to contemplate her in her deformity. In 
tliis also, how intelligibly does she speak to the eyes of 
aH at the first glance ! 

Number 1. 

Who does not here read reason debased, and stupidity 
almost sunken to brutality ? This eye, these wrinkles 
of a lowering forehead, this projecting mouth, the whole 
position of the head, do they not aU denote manifest 
dulness and debility ? 

Number 2. A Fool. 

From the small eyes in this figure, the open mouth, 
particularly from the under part of the countenance, no 
raan whatever will expect penetration, reasoning, or 
wisdom. 

Number 3. . 

True or false, nature or caricature, this countenance 
yni, to the common sensations of all men, depict an 
inhuman and brutal character. It is impossible that 
brutality should be overlooked in the nose and mouth, 
or in the eye, though still it deserves to be caLLed a 
human eye. 

Number 4. 

Let us proceed to the characters of passion, which are 
intelligible to every child; so that concerning these 


42 


LAVATEE S PHYSIOGNOMY. 




there can be no dispute, if we are in any degree 
quainted with their language. The more violent - , 
passion is, the more apparent are its signs. The eff.j 
of the stiller passions is to contract, and of the viole 
jo distend the muscles. Every one will perceive in tl- 
countenance fear mingled with abhorrence. 

Nmriber 5. 

No man will expect cheerfulness, tranquillity, content 
strength of mind, and magnanimity, from this counte¬ 
nance. Eear and terror are here strongly marked. 

Numher 6. 

Terror, heightened by native indocility of charact^^* 
is here strongly marked. 

Such examples might be produced without end; but 
to adduce some of the most decisive of the various 
classes is sufficient. We shall give some farther speci¬ 
mens hereafter. - . 


CHAPTER VI. 

The universal Excellence of the Form of Man. 

Each creature is indispensable in the immensity of 
God’s creation; but each creature does not know it is 
thus indispensable. Of all earth’s creatures, man alone 
rejoices in his indispensabihty. No man can render any 
other man dispensable. The place of no man can be 
supplied by another. 

This belief of the indispensability and individuality 
of all men, and in our own metaphysical indispensability 
and individuality, is one of the unacknowledged, the 
noble fruits of physiognomy; a fruit pregnant with most 








;v..v 




































EXCELLENCE OF THE HUMAN FORM. 43 

XDrecious seed, whence shall spring lenity and love. Oh, 
may posterity behold them flourish! may future ages 
repose under their shade ! The most deformed, the most 
corrupt of men, is still indispensable in this world of 
God, and is more or less capable of knowing his own 
individuality and unsuppliable indispensability. The 
wickedest, the most deformed of men, is still more noble 
than the most beauteous and perfect animal. Contem¬ 
plate, 0 man 1 what thy nature is, not what it might be, 
not what is wanting. Humanity, amid all its distortions, 
will ever remain wondrous humanity I 

Incessantly might I repeat doctrines like this. Art 
thou better, more beauteous, nobler, than many others 
of thy fellow-creatures? If so, rejoice, and ascribe it 
not to thyself, but to Him who, from the same clay, 
formed one vessel for honour, another for dishonour; 
to Him who, without thy advice, without thy prayer, 
without any desert of thine, caused thee to be what 
thou art. 

Yea, to Him 1 for what hast thou, 0 man! that thou 
didst not receive ? How, if thou didst receive, why dost 
thou glory as if thou hadst not received?” ^‘Can the 
eye say to the hand, I have no need of thee ? ” He 
that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker.” “ God 
hath made of oim blood all nations of men.” Who more 
deeply, more internally, feels all these divine truths than 
the physiognomist ? the true physiognomist, who is not 
merely a man of literature, a reader, a reviewer, an author, 
but—a man I 

I am ready to acknowledge that the most humane 
physiognomist, he who so eagerly searches whatever is 
good, beautiful, and noble in nature; who delights in 
the ideal; who duly exercises, nourishes, refines his 


44 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


taste, with humanity more improved, more perfect, more 
holy; even he is in frequent danger, at least is fre¬ 
quently tempted, to turn from the common herd of 
depraved men—from the deformed, the foolish, the apes, 
the hypocrites, the vulgar of mankind; in danger of for¬ 
getting that these misshapen forms, these apes, these 
hypocrites, also are men; and that, notwithstanding all 
his imagined or his real excellence, all his noble feelings, 
the purity of his views, (and who has cause to boast of 
these ?) all the firmness, the soundness of his reason, the 
feelings of his heart, the powers with which he is en¬ 
dowed, still he is very probably, from his own moral 
defects, in the eyes of his superior beings, in the eyes of 
his much more righteous brother, as distorted as the 
most ridiculous, most depraved moral or physical mon¬ 
ster appears to be in his eyes. 

Liable as we are to forget this, reminding is necessary 
both to the writer and reader of this work. Lorget not 
that even the wisest of men are men. Forget not how 
much positve good may be found even in the worst, and 
that they are as necessary, as good in their place, as thou 
art. Are they not equally indispensable, equally un- 
suppliable ? They possess not, either, in mind or body, 
the smallest thing exactly as thou dost. Each is wholly, 
and in every part as individual as thou art. Consider 
each as if he were single in the universe ; then wilt thou 
discover powers and excellences in him which, abstract¬ 
edly of comparision, deserve all attention and admiration. 
Compare him afterwards with others, his similarity, his 
dissimilarity to so many of his fellow-creatures. How 
must this incite thy amazement! How wilt thou value 
the individuality, the indispensability of his being! 
How wilt thou wonder at the harmony of his parts, each 


EXCELLENCE OF THE HUMAN FORM. 45 

contributing to form one whole; at their relation, the 
relation of his million-fold individuality, to such mul¬ 
titudes of other individuals! Yes, we wonder at and 
adore the so simple, yet so infinitely varied expression 
of Almighty power inconceivable, so especially and so 
gloriously revealed in the nature of man. 

No man ceases to be a man, how low soever he may sink 
oeneath the dignity of human nature. Not being beast, 
he still is capable of amendment, of approaching perfec¬ 
tion. The worst of faces still is a human face. Humanity 
ever continues the honour and ornament of man. 

It is as impossible for a brute animal to become man, 
although he may in many actions approach, or almost 
surpass him, as for man to become a brute; although 
many men indulge themselves in actions which we can¬ 
not view in brutes without abhorrence. 

But the very capacity of voluntarily debasing him¬ 
self in appearance even below brutality, is the honour 
and privilege of man. This very capacity of imitating 
aU things by an act of his wiU and the powers of his 
understanding, this very capacity man only has, beasts 
have not. The countenances of beasts are not suscep¬ 
tible of any remarkable deterioration, nor are they 
capable of any remarkable amelioration or beautifying. 
The worst of the countenances of men may be still more 
debased; but they may also, to a certain degree, be 
improved and ennobled. 

The degree of perfection or degradation of which 
man is capable, cannot be described. For this reason 
the worst countenance has a well-founded claim to the 
notice, esteem, and hope of all good men. Again, in 
every human countenance, however debased, humanity 
is still visible; that is, the image of the Deity. 


46 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


I have seen the worst of men in their worst of 
moments; yet could not all their vice, blasphemy, and 
oppression of guilt, extinguish the light of good that 
shone in their countenances, the spirit of humanity, the 
ineffaceable traits of internal, external perfectibility. 
The sinner we would exterminate, the man we must 
embrace. 0, physiognomy, what a pledge art thou of 
the everlasting clemency of God towards man! 0, man, 

rejoice with whatever rejoices in its existence, and 
condemn no being whom God doth not condemn! 


CHAPTEK VII. 

Of the Forehead. 

I SHALL appropriate this and some of the following 
chapters to remarks on certain individual parts of the 
human body. The following are my own remarks on 
foreheads:— 

The form, height, arching, proportion, obliquity, and 
position of the skull or bone of the forehead, show the 
propensity, degree of power, thought, and sensibility of 
man; the covering or skin of the forehead, its position, 
colour, wrinkles, and tension, denote the passions and 
present state of the mind. The bones give the internal 
quantity, and their covering the application of power. 

Though the skin be wrinkled, the forehead bones 
remain unaltered; but this wrinking varies according to 
the various forms of the bones. A certain degree of 
flatness produces certain wrinkles; a certain arching is 
.attended by certain other wrinkles; so that the wrinkles, 
separately considered will give the arching; and this, 



SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE SKULL. 


69 


excepted.” He ought to be able to see the youth in the 
boy, and the man in the youth; and, on the reverse, the 
youth in the man, the boy in the youth, the infant in the 
boy, and, lastly, the embryo in its proper individual form. 

Let us, 0 ye who adore that Wisdom which has 
framed all things! contemplate a moment longer the 
human skull. There are, in the bare skull of man, the 
same varieties as are to be found in the whole external 
form of the living man. 

As the infinite variety of the external form of man is 
one of the indestructible pillars of physiognomy, no less 
so, in my opinion, must the infinite varieties of the skull 
itself be. What I have hereafter to remark will, in part, 
show that we ought particularly to begin by that, if, 
instead of a subject of curiosity and amusement, we 
would wish to make the science of physiognomy univer¬ 
sally useful 

I shall show that from the structure, form, outline, 
and properties of the bones, not all indeed, but much 
may be iscovered, and probably more than from all the 
other parts. 


Objection and Answer, 

What answer shall I make to that objection, with 
which a certain anti-physiognomist has made himself so 
merry ? 

In the catacombs near Eome,” says he, a number 
of skeletons were found, which were supposed to be the 
relics of saints, and as such were honoured. After 
some time, several learned men began to doubt whether 
these had really been the sepulchres of the first Chris¬ 
tians and martyrs, and even to suspect that malefactors 
and banditti might have been buried there. The piety 


70 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


of the faithful was thus much puzzled; but if the science 
of physiognomy be so certain, they might have removed 
-all their doubts by sending for Lavater, who with very 
little trouble, by merely examining and touching them, 
might have distinguished the bones of the saints from 
the bones of the banditti, and thus have restored the 
true, relics to their just and original pre-eminence.'’ 

The conceit is whimsical enough,” answers a cold 
and phlegmatic friend of physiognomy; '^but, having 
tired ourselves with laughing, let us examine what 
would have been the consequence had this story been 
fact. According to our opinion, the physiognomist 
would have remarked great differences in a number of 
bones, particularly in the skulls, which to the ignorant 
would have appeared perfectly similar; and having 
classed his heads, and shown their immediate gradations, 
and the contrast of the two extremes, we may presume 
the attentive spectator would have been inclined to pay 
some respect to his conjectures on the qualities and 
activity of brain which each formerly contained. 

Besides, when we reflect how certain it is that many 
malefactors have been possessed of extraordinary abili¬ 
ties and energy, and how uncertain it is whether many 
of the saints who are honoured with red-letter days in 
the calendar ever possessed such qualities, we find the 
question so intricate that we should be inclined to par¬ 
don the poor physiognomist were he to refuse an answer, 
a^^d leave the decision to the great infallible Judge.” 


Further Reply. 

Let us endeavour further to investigate the question; 
for, though this answer is good, it is insufficient. Who 


SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE SKULL. 71 

ever yet pretended absolutely to distinguish saints from 
banditti, by inspecting only the skull. 

To me it appears that justice requires we should, in 
all our decisions concerning books, men, and opinions, 
judge each according to their pretensions, and not ascribe 
pretensions which have not been made to any man. 

I have heard of no physiognomist who has had, and I 
am certain that I myself never have had, any such pre¬ 
sumption. Notwithstanding which, I maintain as a 
truth most demonstrable, that by the mere form, pro¬ 
portion, hardness, or weakness of the skull, the strength 
or weakness of the general character may be known with 
the greatest certainty. But, as hath been often repeated, 
strength and weakness are neither virtue nor vice, sainl 
nor malefactor. 

Power, like riches, may be employed to the advantage 
or detriment of society, the same as wealth may be in 
the possession of a saint or a demon; and as it is with 
wealth or arbitrary positive power, so is it with natural 
innate power. As in an hundred rich men there are 
ninety-nine who are not saints, so will there scarcely 
be one saint among an hundred men born with this 
power. 

When, therefore, we remark in a skull great original 
and percussive power, we cannot indeed say this man 
was a malefactor; but we may affirm there was this 
excess of power which, if it were not qualified and tem¬ 
pered during life, there is the highest probability it 
would have been agitated by the spirit of conquest, 
would have become a general, a conqueror, a Caesar, a 
Cartouch. Under certain circumstances he would pro¬ 
bably have acted in a certain manner, and his actions 
would have varied according to the variation of circum- 


72 


lavatek’s physiognomy. 


stances; but be would always have acted with ardour, 
tempestuously—always as a ruler and a conqueror. 

Thus, also, we may affirm of certain other skulls 
which in their whole structure and form discover ten 
derness, and resemblance to parchment, that they denote 
weakness; a mere capability of perceptive without per¬ 
cussive, without creative power. Therefore, under 
certain circumstances, such persons would have acted 
weakly. They would not have had the native power of 
withstanding this or that temptation, of engaging in this 
or that enterprise. In the fashionable world they would 
iiave acted the fop, the libertine in a more confined 
circle, and the enthusiastic saint in a convent. 

Oh! how differently may the same power, the same 
sensibility, the same capacity, act, feel, and conceive 
under different circumstances ! And hence we may, in 
part, comprehend the possibility of predestination and 
liberty in one and the same subject. 

Take a man of the commonest understanding to a 
charnel-house, and make him attentive to the differences 
of skuUs; in a short time he will either perceive of 
himself, or understand when told, here is strength, there 
weakness; here obstinacy, and there indecision. 

If shown the bald head of Csesar as painted by 
Rubens or Titian, or that of Michael Angelo, what man 
would be duU enough not to discover that impulsive 
power, that rocky comprehension, by which they were 
peculiarly characterised; and that more ardour, more 
action, must be expected than from a smooth, round, 
fiat head? 

How characteristic is the skull of Charles XII.! 
How different from the skull of his biographer, Voltaire ! 
Compare the skuU of Judas with the skull of Christ 


THE DIFFERENCE OF SKULLS. 


73 


after Holbein, discarding the mnscnlar parts, and 1 
doubt, if asked which was the wicked betrayer, which 
the innocent betrayed, whether any one would hesitate. 

I will acknowledge that, when two determinate heads 
are presented to us with such striking differences, the 
one of which is known to be that of a malefactor, the 
other that of a saint, it is infinitely more easy to decide; 
but he who can distinguish between them, should not 
therefore affirm he can distinguish the skulls of saints 
from the skulls of malefactors. 

To conclude this chapter. Who is unacquainted with 
the anecdote of Herodotus, that it was possible many 
years afterwards, on the field of battle, to distinguish the 
skulls of the effeminate Medes from those of the manly 
Persians? I think I have heard the same remark made 
of the Swiss and the Burgundians. This at least proves 
it is granted that we may perceive, in the skull only, 
a difference of strength and manners as well as of 
nations. 


CHAPTEK XIV 

0/ the Difference of Shills as they relate to SeXy and 
'particularly to Nations.—Of the Shulls of Children 

An Essay on the difference of bones, as they relate 
to sex, and particularly to nations, has been published 
by M. Fischer, which is well deserving of attention. 
The following are some thoughts on the subject, concern¬ 
ing which nothing will be expected from me, but very 
much from M. Kamper. 

Consideration and comparison of the external and 
internal make of the body, in male and female, teaches 



74 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


US that the one is destined for labour and strength, ana 
the other for beauty and propagation. The bones 
particularly denote masculine strength in the former; 
and, so far as the stronger and the prominent are more 
easy to describe than the less prominent and the weaker, 
so far is the male skeleton and the skull the easier te 
define. 

The general structure of the bones in the male, and of 
the skull in particular, is evidently of stronger formation 
than in the female. The body of the male increases, 
from the hip to the shoulder, in breath and thickness; 
hence the broad shoulders and square form of the strong: 
whereas the female skeleton gradually grows thinner and 
weaker from the hip upwards, and by degrees appears as 
if it were rounded. 

Even single bones in the ’female are more tender, 
smooth, and round; have fewer sharp edges, cutting and 
prominent corners. 

We may here properly cite the remark of Santorinus 
concerning the difference of skulls as they relate to sex. 

The aperture of the mouth, the palate, and in general 
the parts which form the voice, are less in the female; 
and the more small and round chin, consequently the 
under part of the mouth, correspond.” 

The round or angular form of the skull may be very 
powerfully and essentially turned to the advantage of 
the physiognomist, and becomes a source of innumerable 
individual judgments. Of this the whole work abounds 
with proofs and examples. 

No man is perfectly like another, either in external 
construction or internal parts, whether great or small, 
or in the system of the bones. I find this difference not 
only between nations, but between persons of the nearest 


THE DIFFERENCE OF SKULLS. 


75 


kindred; but not so great between these, and between 
persons of the same nation, as between nations remote 
from each other, whose manners and food are very dif¬ 
ferent. The more confidently men converse with, the 
more they resemble each other, as well in the formation 
of the parts of the body, as in language, manners, and 
food; that is, so far as the formation of the body can be 
infiuenced by external accidents. Those nations, in a 
certain degree, will resemble each other that have com¬ 
mercial intercourse, they being acted upon by the effect 
of climate, imitation, and habit, which have so great an 
infiuence in forming the body and mind—that is to say, 
the visible and invisible powers of man; although 
national character still remains, and which character, in 
reality, is much easier to remark than to describe. 

We shall leave more extensive inquiries and observa¬ 
tions concerning this subject to some such person as 
Kamper, and refrain, as becomes us; not having obtained 
sufficient knowledge of the subject to make remarks of 
our own of sufficient importance. 

Differences with respect to strength, firmness, struc¬ 
ture, and proportion of the parts, are certainly visible in 
all the bones of the skeletons of the different nations; 
but most in the formation of the countenance, which 
every where contains the peculiar expression of nature, 
of the mind. 

The skull of a Dutchman, for example, is in general 
rounder, with broader bones, curved, and arched in all 
its parts, and with the sides less fiat and compressed. 

A Calmuc skull will be more rude and gross ; fiat on 
the top, prominent at the sides; the parts firm and com¬ 
pressed, the face broad and fiat. 

The skull of the Ethiopian is steep, suddenly elevated; 


76 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


as suddenly small, sharp above the eyes; beneath 
strongly projecting; circular and high behind. 

In proportion as the forehead of the Calmuc is flat 
and low, that of the Ethiopian is high and narrow; 
while the hack part of an European head has a much 
more protuberant arch, and spherical form behind, than 
that of a negro. 


0/ the Shulls of Children, 

The skull or head of a child, drawn upon paper, 
without additional circumstance, will be generally 
known, and seldom confounded with the head of an 
adult. But, to keep them distinct, it is necessary the 
painter should not be too hasty and incorrect in his 
observations of what is peculiar, or so frequently gene¬ 
ralize the particular, which is the eternal error of painters, 
and of so many pretended physiognomists. 

Notwithstanding individual variety, there are certain 
constant signs proper to the head of a child, which as 
much consist in the combination and form of the whole, 
as in the single parts. 

It is well known that the head is larger in proportion 
to the rest of the body, the younger the person is; and 
it seems to me, from comparing the skull of the embryo, 
the child, and the man, that the part of the skuU which 
contains the brain is proportionahly larger than the 
parts that compose the jaw and the countenance. Hence 
it happens that the forehead in children, especially the 
upper part, is generally so prominent. 

The hones of the upper and under jaw, with the teeth 
they contain, are later in their growth, and more slowly 
attain perfect formation. The under part of the head 
generally increases more than the upper, till it has 


THE DIFFERENCE OF SKULLS. 


77 


attained full growth. Several processes of the hones, as 
the processus mamillares, which lie behind and under 
the ears, form themselves after the birth; as do also, in a 
great measure, various hidden sinuses or cavities in 
these bones. The quill form of these bones, with their 
various points, ends, and protuberances, and the nume¬ 
rous muscles which are annexed to them, and continually 
in action, make the greater increase and change more 
possible and easy than can happen in the spherical bony 
covering of the brain, when once the sutures are entirely 
become solid. 

This unequal growth of the two principal parts of the 
skull must necessarily produce an essential difference 
in the whole, without enumerating the obtuse extremities, 
the edges, sharp corners, and single protuberances, which 
are chiefly occasioned by the action of the muscles. 

As the man grows, the countenance below the fore¬ 
head becomes more protuberant; and as the sides of the 
face, that is to say, the temple bones, which are also slow 
in coming to perfection, continually remove further from 
each other, the skull gradually loses that pear form 
which it appears to me to have had in embryo. 

The sm^6s frontales first form themselves after birth. 
The prominence at the bottom of the forehead, between 
the eyebrows, is likewise wanting in children. The 
forehead joins the nose without any remarkable curve. 
This latter circumstance may also be observed in some 
grown persons, when the sinus frontales are either want¬ 
ing or very small; for these cavities are found very 
different in different subjects. 

The nose, during growth, alters exceedingly; but I am 
unable to explain in what manner the bones contribute 
to this alteration, it being chiefly cartilaginous. Ac- 


78 


LAVATER S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


curately to determine this, many experiments on the 
heads and skulls of children, and grown persons, would 
he necessary; or, rather, if we could compare the same 
head with itself at different ages, which might be done 
by the means of shades, such gradation of the head or 
heads would be of great utility to the physiognomist. 


CHAPTEK XV. 

Description of Plate III. 

Number 1. 

This outline, from a bust of Cicero, appears to me an 
almost perfect model of congeniality; the whole has the 
character of penetrating acuteness, an extraordinary 
though not a great profile. All is acute; all is sharp: 
discerning, searching, less benevolent than satirical, 
elegant, conspicuous, subtle. 

Number 2. 

Another congenial countenance. Too evidently nature 
for it to be mistaken for ideal,, or the invention and 
emendation of art. Such a forehead does not betoken 
the rectilinear, but the nose thus bent. Such an upper 
lip, such an open, eloquent mouth! The forehead does 
not lead us to expect high poetical genius; but acute 
punctuality, and the stability of retentive, memory. It 
is impossible to suppose this a common countenance. 

Number 3. 

The forehead and nose not congenial The nose shows 
the very acute thinker. The lower part of the forehead. 








'J 


♦ • ' 





























































h'-.f 


iA>l« 








►rv> • ’*• “-sC'jL 


, ’-"I'T-* 




►Vi 




M 


r»^>- 


'’*V;' 


■ ' 


-O'* 





I • 


r V ■'■ 1 


•' j •«» 


U i' 




•?!- 


►■r .•^-T 


..;♦.■»* i ' 


V ■. ^ 

«*' jVu 


•4^ 


V 


• -A 



4\ 




A'' 


^*::^■ -i ‘ 


'Is 


7 4 • 


1.^' 




-V 


/ 


‘ t- 


■*”>' ' 


h. I 






L'IL ^ ' 


''' ' ■: " 5 ^ 'vVe 

‘ .^t • 

v/''., ' - , f •' “^Vii 

.:.j 


V 4. 


* * ■ * y v» ' > ^ ^ 


it* 


('1 


sJft:<\ 


' ■<• • 




3? . ’•■;■ 


•5Tj r 




pp^;|f:|'WPll 






•♦ f,- 






u-mr. 














:;iai 


im 


«^ii' 




!5j 'r 4 i 


. w i- ^ mi 

' -i ”1 

ifc^b^.’ I'J 






'.Vv-i 


:<>^5 




M 




r«^. I 




X . >^j 


.">5 


< «4 


Vx 


Sf; 


r*' 1. 


rt 


i 




^•Fn 




/• . :'^;-- 


•Hk 








iC*' 


i V 






’■!/*♦ , 


‘ »'. '4< 




V i < 4 








A 


i'-'i 


li. 








yj ,- 






4. 


cl* 




w- 


;N' 


1 V •. i 




n 'V 




ViV- 




Sr 


iiv 


,V"f3 


f'Uk] 






r? ■- tK 




/’ .!» 








.<*^2 


Tv.'.' 






./■"M 






.* • V 








f i. ^ 


«9» 




<• 


*■ Al' <*• 


M 




••V 




V* >’ 

5./ - fe 






-iv- 










*r> 


X' 




'1% ,^- 










»'\S«23 












r 


‘4't' 




.^■ 


<^r> 






IM 


-lA^ 


m 










St 




.A 


>■- -: 


V *t 


m 






/A' 


r'o.vdK- 1^ 


O 






y 


r.; 




A 


!?'5' 




A 




• V J 


k***' 


.ak; 




•A 


- v-.-v 




F* s' 




•*.’ 


► «J 






:«v 


^^F•^ 




ij: 








‘i-. 




0 . ^ 






;'^..v 


•? >. 






m 


►« 


:r; 


<■ /k^ 




•VTJf 


A... 


V. 


♦ \ 


*ir^ 








«i 














DESCRIPTION OF PLATE III. 


79 


on the contrary, especially the distance between the eye¬ 
brow and eye, do not betoken this high degree of mental 
power. The stiff position of the whole is much at vari¬ 
ance with the eye and mouth, but particularly with the 
nose. The whole, the eyebrow excepted, speaks a calm; 
peaceable, mild character. 

Number 4. 

The harmony of the mouth and nose is self-evident. 
The forehead is too good, too comprehensive, for this very 
limited under part of the countenance. The whole be¬ 
speaks a harmless character; nothing delicate nor severe. 

Number 5. 

We have here a high bold forehead, with a short- 
seeming blunt nose, and a fat double chin. How do 
these harmonize! It is almost a general law of nature, 
that where the eyes are strong drawn, and the eyebrows 
near, the eyebrows must also be strong. This counte¬ 
nance, merely by its harmony, its prominent congenial 
traits, is expressive of sound, clear understanding; the 
countenance of reason. 


Number 6. 

The perfect countenance of a politician. Faces which 
are thus pointed from the eyes to the chin always have 
lengthened noses, and never possess large, open, power¬ 
ful, and piercing eyes. Their firmness partakes of 
obstinacy, and they rather follow intricate plans than 
the dictates of common-sense. 


80 


latater’s physiognomy. 


CHAPTEE XVI. 

The Physiognomist 

All men have talents for all things; yet \ye may 
venture to assert that very few have the determinate and. 
essential talents. AU men have talents for drawing: 
they can aU learn to write, well or ill; yet not an excel¬ 
lent draftsman will he produced in ten thousand. The 
same may he affirmed of eloquence, poetry, and physio¬ 
gnomy. All men who have eyes and ears have talents 
to become physiognomists; yet not one in ten thousand 
can become an excellent physiognomist. 

It may therefore be of use to sketch the character of 
the true physiognomist, that those who are deficient of 
the requisite talents may be deterred from the study of 
physiognomy. The pretended physiognomist, with a 
foolish head and a wicked heart, is certainly one of the 
most contemptible and mischievous creatures that crawls 
on the face of the earth. 

Xo one whose person is not well formed can become 
a good physiognomist. Those painters were the best 
whose persons were the handsomest. Eubens, Vandyke, 
and Eaphael, possessing three gradations of beauty, 
possessed three gradations of the genius of painting. 
The physiognomists of the greatest symmetry are the 
best. As the most virtuous can best determine on 
virtue, and the just on justice, so can the most handsome 
countenances on the goodness, beauty, and noble traits of 
the human coimtenance, and consequently on its defects 
and ignoble properties. The scarcity of human beauty 
is the reason why physiognomy is so much decried, and 
finds so many opponents. 


f- 

/ 


THE PHYSIOGNOMIST. 


81 


No person, therefore, ought to enter the sanctuarj" of 
physiognomy who has a debased mind, an ill-formed 
forehead, a blinking eye, or a distorted mouth. “ The 
light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye he 
single,dhy whole body shall be full of light; hut if thine 
eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness: 
if, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how 
great is that darkness!” 

Any one who would become a physiognomist cannot 
meditate too much on this text. 0 single eye! that 
beholdest all things as they are, seest nothing falsely, 
with glance obhque, nothing overlookest! 0 most perfect 
image of reason and wisdom!—^why do I say image ?— 
thou art reason and wisdom themselves! Without thy 
resplendent light would all that appertains to physio¬ 
gnomy become dark! 

He who does not, at the first aspect of any man, feel a 
certain emotion of affection or dislike, attraction or 
repulsion, never can become a physiognomist. 

He who studies art more than nature, and prefers 
what the painters call manner to the truth of drawing 
he who does not feel himself moved almost to tears, at 
beholding the ancient ideal beauty, and the present 
depravity of men and imitative art; he who view^s 
antique gems, and does not discover enlarged intelligence 
in Cicero, enterprising resolution in Caesar, profound 
thought in Solon, invincible fortitude in Brutus, in 
Plato godlike wisdom; or, in modern medals, the height 
of human sagacity in Montesquieu, in Haller the ener¬ 
getic contemplative look, and the most refined taste; the 
deep reasoner in Locke, and the witty satirist in Voltaire, 
even at the first glance, never can become a physio¬ 
gnomist. 

G 



82 


LAVATER’S PHYSI0GN03IY. 


He who does not dwell with fixed rapture on the aspect 
of benevolence in action, supposing itself unobserved; 
he who remains unmoved by the voice of innocence, the 
guiltless look of unviolated chastity, the mother 
contemplating her beauteous sleeping infant; the warm 
pressure of the hand of a friend, or his eye swimming in 
tears; he who can lightly tear himself from scenes like 
these, and turn them to ridicule, might much easier com¬ 
mit the crime of parricide than become a physiognomist. 

If such be the case, what then is required of the 
physiognomist? What should his inclination, talents, 
qualities, and capabilities be ? 

In the first place, as hath been in part already 
remarked, his first of requisites should be a body well 
proportioned and finely organized; accuracy of sensation, 
capable of receiving the most minute outward impres¬ 
sions, and easily transmitting them faithfully to memory, 
or, as I ought rather to say, impressing them upon the 
imagination and the fibres of the brain. His eye, in 
particular, must be excellent, clear, acute, rapid, and 
firm. 

The very soul of physiognomy is precision in obser¬ 
vation. The physiognomist must possess a most delicate, 
swift, certain, most extensive spirit of observation. To 
observe is to be attentive, so as to fix the mind on a 
particular object, which it selects, or may select, for 
consideration, from a number of surrounding objects. 
To be attentive is to consider some one particular object, 
exclusively of all others, and to analyze; consequently, 
to distinguish what is similar, what dissimilar; to discover 
proportion and disproportion, is the office of the under¬ 
standing. 

If the physiognomist has not an accurate, superior. 


THE THYSIOGNOMIST. 


83 


and extended understanding, he will neither be able 
rightly to observe, nor to compare and class his obser¬ 
vations, much less to draw the necessary conclusions. 
Physiognomy is the highest exercise of the understand¬ 
ing the logic of corporeal varieties. 

To the clearest and profoundest understanding, the 
true physiognomist unites the most lively, strong, com¬ 
prehensive imagination, and a fine and rapid wit. 
Imagination is necessary to impress the traits with 
exactness, so that they may be renewed at pleasure; and 
to range the pictures in the mind as perfectly as if they 
still were visible, and with all possible order. 

A keen penetration is indispensable to the physio¬ 
gnomist, that he may easily perceive the resemblance 
that exists between objects. Thus, for example, he sees 
a head or forehead possessed of certain characteristic 
marks : these marks present themselves to his imagina¬ 
tion, and a keen penetration discovers to what they are 
similar. Hence greater precision, certainty, and expres¬ 
sion, are imparted to liis images. He must have the ca¬ 
pacity of uniting the approximation of each trait that he 
remarks, and be able to define the degree of this approx¬ 
imation. Ho one, who is not inexhaustibly copious in 
language, can become a physiognomist; and the highest 
possible copiousness is poor, comparatively with the 
wants of physiognomy. All that language can express 
the physiognomist must be able to express. He must 
be the creator of a new language, which must be equally 
precise and alluring, natural and intelligible. 

Every production of art, taste, and mind; all vocabu¬ 
laries of all nations; all the kingdoms of nature, must 
obey his command, must supply his necessities. 

The art of drawing is indispensable, if he would be 


84 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


precise in his definitions and accurate in his decisions. 
Drawing is the first, most natural, and unequivocal 
language of physiognomy; the best aid of the imagina¬ 
tion, the only means of preserving and communicating 
numberless peculiarities, shades, and expressions, which 
are not by words or any other mode to be described. 
The physiognomist who cannot draw hastily, accurately, 
and characteristically, will be unable to make, much less 
to retain or communicate, innumerable observations. 

The knowledge of anatomy is indispensable to him; 
as also is physiology, or the science of the human body 
in health; not only that he may be able to remark any 
disproportion, as well in the solids as in the muscular 
parts, but that he may likewise be capable of naming 
these parts in his physiognomical language. He must 
also be acquainted with the temperament of the human 
body; not only its different colours and appearances, 
occasioned by the mixture of the blood, but also the 
constituent parts of the blood itself, and their different 
proportions. Still more especially must be understood 
the external symptoms of the constitution, relative to 
the nervous system; for on this depends more than 
even on the knowledge of the blood. 

What an extensive knowledge ought he to have of 
the human heart and the manners of the world ! How 
thoroughly ought he to inspect, to feel himself! That 
most essential, yet most difficult of all knowledge, to the 
physiognomist, ought to be possessed by him in all 
possible perfection. In proportion only as he knows 
himself will he be enabled to know others. 

Not only is this self-knowledge, this studying of man, 
by the study of his own heart, with the genealogy and 
consanguinity of inclinations and passions, their various 


THE PHYSIOGNOMIST. 


85 


symptoms and changes, necessary to the physiognomist 
for the foregoing causes, hut also for an additional 
reason. 

“ The peculiar shades, ” I here cite the words of one 
of the critics on my first essay, “ the peculiar shades of 
feeling, which most affect the observer of any object, 
frequently have relation to his own mind, and will he 
soonest remarked by him in proportion as they sym¬ 
pathize with his own powers. They will affect him most, 
according to the manner in which he is accustomed to 
survey the physical and moral world. Many, therefore, 
of his observations are applicable only to the observer 
himself; and, however strongly they may be conceived 
by him, he cannot easily impart them to others. Yet 
these minute observations influence his judgment. For 
this reason the physiognomist must, if he knows 
himself, which he in justice ought to do before he 
attempts to know others, once more compare his remarks 
with his own peculiar mode of thinking, and separate 
those which are general from those which are individual, 
and appertain to himself. ” I shall make no commen¬ 
tary on this important precept. I shall here only repeat, 

! that an accurate and profound knowledge of his own 
! heart is one of the most essential qualities in the 
character of the physiognomist. 

Eeader, if thou hast not often blushed at thyself, even 
' though thou shouldest be the best of men, for the best 
I of men is but man; if thou hast not often stood with 
‘ downcast eyes in presence of thyself and others; if thou 
I hast not dared to confess to thyself, and to confide to 
thy friend, that thou art conscious the seeds of every 
vice are latent in thy heart; if, in the gloomy calm of 
solitude, having no witness but God and thy own con- 





8G 


LAVATEH’S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


science, tliou hast not a thousand times sighed and 
sorrowed for thyself; if thou wantest the power to 
observe the progress of the passions from their very j 
commencement; to examine what the impulse was ^ 
which determined thee to good or ill, and to avow the 
motive to God and thy friend, to whom thou mayest 
thus confess thyself, and who also may disclose the 
recesses of his soul to thee; a friend who shall stand 
before thee the representative of man and God, and in 
whose estimation thou also shalt be invested with the 
same sacred character; a friend in whom thou mayest see 
thy very soul, and who shall reciprocally behold him¬ 
self in thee : if, in a word, thou art not a man of worth, 
thou never canst learn to observe or know men well; 
thou never canst be, never wilt be, worthy of being a 
good physiognomist. If thou wishest not that the 
talent of observation should be a torment to thyself, 
and an evil to thy brother, how good, how pure, how 
affectionate, how expanded ought thy heart to be ! How 
mayest thou ever discover the marks of benevolence 
and mild forgiveness, if thou thyself art destitute of 
such gifts ? How, if philanthropy does not make thine 
eye active, how mayest thou discern the impressions of 
virtue, and the marks of the sublimest sensations? 
How often wilt thou overlook them in a countenance 
disfigured by accident! Surrounded thyself by mean 
passions, how often will such false observers bring false 
intelligence I Put far from thee self-interest, pride, and 
envy, otherwise “thine eye will be evil, and thy whole 
body full of darkness.” Thou wilt read vices on the 
forehead whereon virtue is written, and wilt accuse I 
others of those errors and failings of which thy own 
heart accuses thee. Whoever bears any resemblance to 



THE PHYSIOGNOMIST. 


87 


thine enemy, will by thee be accused of all those failings 
and vices with which thy enemy is loaded by thy own 
partiality and self-love. Thine eye will overlook the 
beauteous traits and magnify the discordant. Thou wilt 
behold nothing but caricature and disproportion. 

But, to draw to a conclusion: the physiognomist 
should know the world; he should have intercourse with 
all manner of men, in all various ranks and conditions; 
he should have travelled, should possess extensive know¬ 
ledge, a thorough acquaintance with artists, mankind, 
vice, and virtue, the wise and the foolish, and particu¬ 
larly with children; together with a love of literature, 
and a taste for painting and the other imitative arts. I 
say, can it need demonstration that all those and much 
more are to him indispensable ? To sum up the whole : 
to a well-formed, well-organized body, the perfect phy¬ 
siognomist must unite an acute spirit of observation, a 
lively fancy, an excellent judgment, and, with numerous 
propensities to the arts and sciences, a strong, benevolent, 
enthusiastic, innocent heart; a heart confident in itself, 
and free from the passions inimical to man. Ho one, 
certainly, can read the traits of magnanimity, and the 
high qualities of the mind, who is not himself capable 
of magnanimity, honourable thoughts, and sublime 
actions. 

Thus have I pronounced judgment against myself in 
writing these characteristics of the physiognomist. Hot 
false modesty, but conscious feeling, impels me to say, 
that I am as distant from the true physiognomist as 
heaven is from earth. I am but the fragment of a phy¬ 
siognomist, as this work is but the fragment of a system 
of physiognomy. 


88 


lavater's physiognomy. 


CHAPTEE XVIL 

Lavater's own Remarlcs on National Physiognomy. 

It is undeniable that there is national physiognomy 
as well as national character. Whoever doubts of this 
can never have observed men of different nations, nor 
have compared the inhabitants of the extreme confines 
of any two. Compare a Negro and an Englishman, a 
native of Lapland and an Italian, a Frenchman and an 
inhabitant of Terra del Euego. Examine their forms, 
countenances, characters, and minds. Their difference 
will be easily seen, though it will sometimes be very 
difficult to describe it scientifically. 

It seems to me probable that we shall discover what 
is national in the countenance better from the sight of 
an individual at first than of a whole people; at least, 
so it appears to me from my own experience. Individual 
countenances discover more the characteristic of a whole 
nation, than a whole nation does that which is national 
in individuals. The following infinitely little is what I 
have hitherto observed from the foreigners with whom I 
have conversed, and whom I have noticed, concerning 
national character. 

I am least able to characterise the French. They 
have no trait so bold as the English, nor so minute as 
the Germans. I know them chiefly by their teeth and 
their laugh. The Italians I discover by the nose, small 
eyes, and projecting chin. The English by their fore¬ 
heads and eyebrows. The Dutch by the rotundity of 
the head, and the weakness of the hair. The Germans 
by the angles and wrinkles round the eyes and in the 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 89 

cheeks. The Eussians by the snub nose, and their 
light-coloured or black hair. 

I shall now say a word concerning Englishmen in 
particular. Englishmen have the shortest and best 
arched foreheads; that is to say, they are arched only 
upwards, and, towards the eyebrows, either gently recline 
or are rectilinear. They very seldom have pointed, but 
often round, full, medullary noses; the Quakers and 
Moravians excepted, who, wherever they are found, are 
generally thin-lipped. Englishmen have large, well- 
defined, beautifully curved lips. They have also a round 
full chin; but they are peculiarly distinguished by the 
eyebrows and eyes, which are strong, open, liberal, and 
steadfast. The outline of their countenance is in general 
great, and they never have those numerous, infinitely 
minute traits, angles, and wrinkles, by which the Ger¬ 
mans are so especially distinguished. Their complexion 
is fairer than that of the Germans. 

All English women, whom I have known personally 
or by portrait, appear to be composed of marrow and 
nerve. They are inclined to be tall, slender, soft, and 
as distant from all that is harsh, rigorous, or stubborn, 
as heaven is from earth. 

The Swiss have generally no common physiognomy, 
or national character, the aspect of fidelity excepted. 
They are as different from each other as nations the 
most remote. The Erench Swiss peasant is as distinct 
as possible from the peasant of Appenzel. It may be 
that the eye of a foreigner would better discover the 
general character of the nation, and in what it differs 
from the Erench or German than that of the native. 

I find characteristic varieties in each canton of Swit¬ 
zerland. The inhabitants of Zurich, for instance, are 


90 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


middle-sized, more frequently meagre than corpulent, 
but usually one or the other. They seldom have ardent 
eyes, and the outline is not often grand or minute. The 
men are seldom handsome, though the youth are incom¬ 
parably so; but they soon alter. The people of Bern 
are tall, straight, fair, pliable, and firm, and are most 
distinguished by their upper teeth, which are white, 
regular, and easily to be seen. The inhabitants of Basle, 
or Basil, are more rotund, full, and tense of countenance, 
the complexion tinged with yellow, and the lips open 
and flaccid. Those of Schafhausen are hard-boned. 
Their eyes are seldom sunken, but are generally pro¬ 
minent. The sides of the forehead diverge over the 
temples, the cheeks fleshy, and the mouth wide and 
open. They are commonly stronger built than the peo¬ 
ple of Zurich, though in the canton of Zurich there is 
scarcely a village in which the inhabitants do not differ 
from those of the neighbouring village, without attending 
to dress, which, notwithstanding, is also physiognomic. 

I have seen many handsome, broad-shouldered, strong, 
burden-bearing men, round Wadenschweil and Oberreid. 
At Weiningen, two leagues from Zurich, I met a company 
of well-formed men, who were distinguished for their 
cleanliness, circumspection, and gravity of deportment. 

An extremely interesting and instructing book might 
be written on the physiognomic character of the peasants 
of Switzerland. There are considerable districts where 
the countenances, the nose not excepted, are most of 
them broad, as if pressed flat with a board. This dis¬ 
agreeable form, wherever found, is consistent with the 
character of the people. What could be more instruc¬ 
tive than a physiognomic and characteristic description of 
such villages, their mode of living, food, and occunation ? 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


91 


CHAPTEK XVIIT. 

Extracts from Buff on on National Physiognomy. 

Traversing the surface of the earthy and beginning 
in the north, we find in Lapland, and on the northern 
coast of Tartary, a race of men small of stature, singular 
of form, and with countenances as savage as their 
manners. 

These people have large flat faces, the nose broad, the 
pupil of the eye of a yellow-brown inclining to a black, 
the eyelids retiring towards the temples, the cheeks 
extremely high, the mouth very large, the lower part of 
the face narrow, the lips full and high, the voice shrill, 
the head large, the hair black and sleek, and the com¬ 
plexion brown or tanned. They are very small and 
squat, though meagre. Most of them are not above four 
feet, and hardly any exceed four feet and a half. The 
Borandians are still smaller than the Laplanders. The 
Samoiedes more squat, with large heads and noses, and 
darker complexions. Their legs are shorter, their knees 
more turned outwards, their hair is longer, and they 
have less beard. The complexion of the Greenlanders 
is darker still, and of a deen olive colour. 

The women, among all these nations, are as ugly as 
Jhe men; and not only do these people resemble each 
other in ugliness, size, and the colour of their eyes and 
hair, but they have similar inclinations and manners, 
and are all equally gross, superstitious, and stupid. 
Most of them are idolaters; they are more rude than 
savage, wanting courage, self-respect, and modesty. 

If we examine the neighbouring people of the long 
slip of land which the Laplanders inhabit, we shall find 


92 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


they have no relation whatever with that race, excepting 
only the Ostiachs and Tongusians. The Samoiedes and 
the Borandians have no resemblance with the Russians; 
nor have the Laplanders with the Finlanders, the Goths, 
Danes, or Norwegians. The Greenlanders are alike 
different from the savages of Canada. The latter are 
tall and well made; and, though they differ very much 
flom each other, yet they are stiU more infinitely 
different from the Laplanders. The Ostiachs seem to be 
Samoiedes, something less ugly and dwarfish, for they 
are small and ill-formed. 

All the Tartars have the upper part of the countenance 
very large and wrinkled, even in youth; the nose short 
and gross, the eyes small and sunken, the cheeks very 
high, the lower part of the face narrow, the chin long 
and prominent, the upper jaw sunken, the teeth long 
and separated, the eyebrows large, covering the eyes, 
the eyelids thick, the face flat, their skin of an olive 
colour, and their hair black. They are of a middle 
stature, but very strong and robust; have little beard, 
which grows in small tufts like that of the Chinese, 
thick thighs, and short legs. 

The Little or Nogais Tartars have lost a part of their 
ugliness by having intermingled with the Circassians. 
As we proceed eastward into free or independent 
Tartary, the features of the Tartars become something 
less hard, but the essential characteristics of their race 
ever remain. The Mogul Tartars, who conquered China, 
and who were the most polished of these nations, are 
at present the least ugly and ill-made; yet have they, 
like the others, small eyes, the face large and flat, little 
beard, but always black or red, and the nose short and 
compressed. 


BUFFON ON NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 93 

Among the Kergisi and Teheremisi Tartars there is a 
whole nation or tribe, among whom are very singularly 
beautiful men and women. The manners of the Chinese 
and Tartars are wholly opposite, more so than are their 
countenances and forms. The limbs of the Chinese are 
well proportioned, large, and fat. Their faces are round 
and capacious, their eyes small, their eyebrows large, 
their eyelids raised, and their noses little and compressed. 
They only have seven or eight tufts of black hair on 
each lip, and very little on the chin. 

The natives of the coast of Kew Holland, which lies 
^ in sixteen degrees fifteen minutes of south latitude, and 
to the south of the isle of Timor, are perhaps the most 
miserable people on earth, and of all the human race 
most approach the brute animal. They are tall, upright, 
and slender. Their limbs are long and supple, their 
heads great, their forehead round, their eyebrows thick, 
and their eyelids half shut. This they acquire by habit 
in their infancy, to preserve their eyes from the gnats, 
by which they are greatly inoommoded; and, as they 
never much open their eyes, they cannot see at a 
distance, at least and unless they raise the head as if 
they wished to look at something above them. They 
have large noses, thick lips, and wide mouths. It 
should seem that they draw the two upper fore teeth, 
for neither man nor woman, young nor old, have these 
teeth. They have no beard; their faces are long and 
very disagreeable, without a single pleasing feature; 
their hair not long and sleek, like that of most of the 
Indians, but short, black, and curly, like the hair of the 
Hegi’oes. Their skin is black, and resembles that of the 
Indians of the coast of Guinea. 

Let us now examine the natives inhabiting a more 


94 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


temperate climate, and we shall find that the people 
of the northern provinces of the Mogul empire, Persia, 
the Armenians, Turks, Georgians, Mingrelians, Circas¬ 
sians, Greeks, and all the inhabitants of Europe, are the 
handsomest, wisest, and the best formed of any on earth ; 
and that, though the distance between Cachemire and 
Spain, or Circassia and France, is very great, there is still 
a very singular resemblance between people so far from 
each other, but situated in nearly the same latitude. The 
people of Cachemire are renowned for beauty, are as 
well formed as the Europeans, and have nothing of the 
Tartar countenance, the flat nose, and the small pig’s 
eyes, which are so universal among their neighbours. 

The complexion of the Georgians is still more beau¬ 
tiful than that of Cachemire; no ugly face is found in 
the country, and nature has endowed most of the women 
with graces which are nowhere else to be discovered. 
The men also are very handsome, have natural understand¬ 
ing, and would be capable of arts and sciences, did not 
their bad education render them exceedingly ignorant and 
vicious; yet with all their vices the Georgians are civil, 
humane, grave, and moderate; they seldom are under 
the influence of anger, though they become irreconcilable 
enemies having once entertained hatred. 

The Circassians and Mingrelians are equally beautiful 
and well formed. The lame and the crooked are seldom 
seen among the Turks. The Spaniards are meagre, and 
rather small; they are well shaped, have fine heads, 
regular features, good eyes, and well-arranged teeth; but 
their complexions are dark, and inclined to yeUow. It 
has been remarked that in some provinces of Spain, as 
near the banks of the river Bidassoa, the people have 
exceedingly large ears. 


BUFFON ON NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 95 

M. Lavater here makes tkis digression: Can large 
ears tear better than small ? I know one person with 
large rude ears, whose sense of hearing is acute, and 
who has a good understanding; hut, him excepted, I have^ 
particularly remarked large ears to betoken folly; and 
that, on the contrary, ears inordinately small appertain 
to very weak, effeminate characters, or persons of too 
great sensibility.—Thus far Lavater, let us now return 
to Bufifon. 

Men with black or dark-brown hair begin to be rather 
uncommon in England, Flanders, Holland, and the 
northern provinces of Germany; and few such are to be 
found in Denmark, Sweden, and Poland. According to 
Linmeus the Goths are very tall, have sleek, light- 
coloured, silver hair, and blue eyes. The Finlanders are 
muscular and fleshy, with long and light yellow hair, 
the iris of the eye a deep yellow. 

If we collect the accounts of travellers, it will appear 
that there are as many varieties among the race of 
negroes as the whites. They also have their Tartars 
and their Circassians. The blacks on the coast of 
Guinea are extremely ugly, and emit an insufferable 
scent. Those of Sofala and Mozambique are handsome, 
and have no ill smell. These two species of negroes 
resemble each other rather in colour than features. 
Their hair, skin, the odour of their bodies, their manners 
and propensities, are exceedingly different. Those of 
Cape Verd have by no means so disagreeable a smell as 
the natives of Angola. Their skin also is more smooth 
and black, their body better made, their features less 
hard, their tempers more mild, and their shape better. 

The negroes of Senegal are the best formed, and best 
receive instruction. The Hagos are the most humane. 


96 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the Mondongos the most cruel, the Mimes the most 
resolute, capricious, and subject to despair. 

The Guinea negroes are extremely limited in their 
capacities. Many of them appear to be wholly stupid; 
or, never capable of counting more than three, remain in 
a thoughtless state if not acted upon, and have no 
memory; yet, bounded as is their understanding, they 
have much feeling, have good hearts, and the seeds of 
all virtue. 

The Hottentots have all very flat and broad noses; 
but these they would not have, did not their mothers 
suppose it their duty to flatten the nose shortly after 
birth. They have also very thick lips, especially the 
upper; the teeth white, the eyebrows thick, the head 
heavy, the body meagre, and the limbs slender. 

The inhabitants of Canada and all these confines, are 
rather tall, robust, strong, and tolerably well made, have 
black hair and eyes, very white teeth, tawny complexion, 
little beard, and no hair, or almost none, on any other 
part of the body. They are hardy and indefatigable in 
marching, swift of foot, alike support the extremes of 
hunger or excess in feeding; are daring, courageous, 
haughty, grave, and moderate. So strongly do they 
resemble the eastern Tartars in complexion, hair, eyes, 
the almost want of beard and hair, as well as in their 
inclinations and manners, that we should suppose them 
the descendants of that nation, did we not see the two 
people separated from each other by a vast ocean. They 
also are under the same latitude, which is an additional 
proof of the influence of climate on the colour, and 
even on the form of man. 


ZANT ON NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


97 


CHAPTEE XIX. 

Some of the most remarkable Passages from an excellent 
Essay on National Physiognomy^ by Professcm Kant 
of Konigsberg. 

The supposition of Maupertuis, that a race of men 
might be established in any province, in whom under¬ 
standing, probity, and strength should be hereditary, 
could only be reabzed by the possibility of separating 
the degenerate from the conformable births; a project 
which, in my opinion, might be practicable, but which, 
in the present order of things, is prevented by the wiser 
dispositions of nature, according to which the wicked 
and the good are intermingled, that, by the irregularities 
and vices of the former, the latent powers of the latter 
may be put in motion, and impelled to approach perfec¬ 
tion. If nature, without transplantation or foreign 
mixture, be left undisturbed, she will, after many gene¬ 
rations, produce a lasting race that shall ever remain 
distinct. 

If we divide the human race into four princi¬ 
pal classes, it is probable that the intermediate ones, 
however perpetuating and conspicuous, may be imme¬ 
diately reduced to one of these :—1. The race of Whites. 
2. The Xegroes. 3. The Huns (Monguls or Calmucs). 
4. The Hindoos, or people of Hindostan. 

External things may well be the accidental, but not 
the primary causes of what is inherited or assimilated. 
As little as chance, or physico-mechanical causes, can 
produce an organized body, as little can they add any 
thing to its power or propagation; that is to say, produce 

H 


98 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


a thing which shall propagate itself by having a peculiar 
form or proportion of parts. 

Man was undoubtedly intended to be the inhabitant 
of aU climates and all soils. Hence the seeds of many 
internal propensities must be latent in him, which shall 
remain inactive or be put in motion according to his 
situation on the earth. So that, in progressive genera¬ 
tions, he shall appear as if born for that particular soil 
in which he seems planted. 

The air and the sun appear to be those causes which 
most influence the powers of propagation, and effect a 
durable development of germ and propensities; that is 
to say, the air and the sun may be the origin of a distinct 
race. The variations which food may produce must 
soon disappear on transplantation. That which affects 
the propagating powers must not act upon the support 
of life, but upon its original source, its first principle, 
animal conformation, and motion. 

A man transplanted to the frigid zone must decrease 
in stature, since, if the power or momentum of the heart 
continues the same, the circulation must be performed 
in a shorter time, the pulse become more rapid, and the 
heat of the blood increased. Thus Crantz found the 
Greenlanders not only inferior in stature to the Euro¬ 
peans, but also that they had a remarkably greater heat 
of body. The very disproportion between the length o^* 
the body and the shortness of the legs, in the northern 
people, is suitable to their climate; since the extremes of 
the body, by their distance from the heart, are more 
subject to the attacks of cold. 

The prominent parts of the countenance, which can 
less be guarded from cold, by the care of nature for 
their preservation, have a propensity to become more 


KANT ON NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 99 

flat. Tlie rising cheek-bone, the half-closed blinking 
eye, appear to be intended for the preservation of sight 
against the dry cold air, and the effusions of light from 
the snow, (to guard against which the Esquimaux use 
snow spectacles,) though they may be the natural effect 
of the climate, since they are found only in a smaller 
degree in milder latitudes. Thus gradually are produced 
the beardless chin, the'flattened nose, thin lips, blinking 
eyes, flat countenances, red-brown complexion, black 
hair, and, in a word, the face of the Calmuc. Such 
properties, by continued propagation, at length form a 
distinct race, which continues to remain distinct even 
when transplanted into warmer climates. 

The copper colour, or red-brown, appears to be as 
natural an effect of the aridity of the air, in cold 
climates, as the olive-brown of the alkaline and bihous 
juices in warm; without taking the native disposition 
of the American into the estimate, who appears to have 
lost half the powers of life, which may be regarded as 
the effect of cold. 

The growth of the porous parts of the body must 
increase in the hot and moist climates. Hence the thick 
short nose and projecting lips. The skin must be oiled, 
not only to prevent excessive perspiration, but also 
imbibing the putrescent particles of the moist air. The 
surplus of the ferruginous or iron particles, which have 
lately been discovered to exist in the blood of man, and 
which, by the evaporation of the phosphoric acidities, 
of which all negroes smell so strong, being cast upon the 
retiform membrane, occasions the blackness which 
appears through the cuticle; and this strong retention of 
the ferruginous particles seems to be necessary in order 
to prevent the general relaxation of the parts. Moist 


lavater’s physiognomy. 



warmtli is peculiarly favourable to the growth of 
animals, and produces the negro, who, by the providence 
of nature, perfectly adapted to his climate, is strong, 
muscular, agile; but dirty, indolent, and trifling. 

The trunk or stem of the root may degenerate; but 
this having once taken root, and stifled other germs, 
resists any future change of form, the character of the 
race having once gained a preponderance in the propa¬ 
gating powers. 


CHAPTEK XX. 

Extracts from other Writers on National Physiognomy .— 
From WinkelmanrCs History of Art.—From the 
Becherches Philosofhigues sur les AmericainSy by M. de 
Pauw.—Observations byLintz.—From a Letter writtenby 
M. Fuessli.—From a Letter written by Professor Camber. 

From WinkelmanrCs History of Art. 

With respect to the form of man, our eyes convince 
us that the character of nation as well as of mind is 
visible in the countenance. As nature has separated 
large districts by mountains and seas, so likewise has 
she distinguished the inhabitants by peculiarity of 
features. In countries far remote from each other, 
the difference is likewise visible in other parts of the 
body, and in stature. Animals are not more varied, 
according to the properties of the countries they inhabit, 
than men are; and some have pretended to remark that 
animals even partake of the propensities of the men. 

The formation of the countenance is as various as 
language—nay, indeed, as dialects—which are thus or 



NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


101 


thus various in consequence of the organs of speech. In 
cold countries the fibres of the tongue must be less 
flexible and rapid than in warm. The natives of Green¬ 
land, and certain tribes of America, are observed to want 
some letters of the alphabet, which must originate in 
the same cause. Hence it happens that the northern 
languages have more monosyllables, and are more clogged 
with consonants, the connecting and pronouncing of 
which is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to other 
nations. 

A celebrated writer has endeavoured to account for 
the varieties of the Italian dialects, from the formation 
of the organs of speech. ^^For this reason,” says he, 
"‘the people of Lombardy, inhabiting a cold country, 
have a more rough and concise pronunciation; the 
inhabitants of Florence and Eome speak in a more 
measured tone; and the Neapolitans, under a stiU 
warmer sky, pronounce the vowels more open, and speak 
with more fulness.” 

Persons well acquainted with various nations, can 
distinguish them as justly from the form of their coun¬ 
tenance as from their speech. Therefore, since man has 
ever been the object of art and artists, the latter have 
constantly given the forms of face of their respective 
nations; and that art among the ancients gave the form 
and countenance of man, is proved by the same effect 
having taken place among the moderns. German, Dutch, 
or French, when the artists neither travel nor study 
foreign forms, can be known by their pictures as perfect¬ 
ly as Chinese or Tartars. After residing many years in 
Italy, Eubens continued to draw his figures as if he had 
never left his native land. 


102 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Another passage from Winkelmann. 

The projecting mouths of the negroes, which they 
have in common with their monkeys, is an excess of 
growth, a swelling occasioned by the heat of the climate; 
like as our lips are swelled by heat or sharp saline 
moisture, and also in some men by violent passion. 
The small eyes of the distant northern and eastern 
nations, are in consequence of the imperfection of their 
growth. They are short and slender. iN'ature produces 
such forms the more she approaches extremes, where 
she has to encounter heat or cold. In the one she is 
prompter and exhausted, and in the other crude, never 
arriving at maturity. The flower withers in excessive 
heat, and, deprived of sun, is deprived of colour. All 
plants degenerate in dark and confined places. 

Nature forms with greater regularity the more she 
approaches her centre, and in more moderate climates. 
Hence the Grecian and our own idea of beauty, being 
derived from more perfect symmetry, must be more 
accurate than the idea of those in whom, to use the 
expression of a modern poet, the image of the Creator 
is half defaced. 

From the Becherches Philosophigues sur les Americains, 
hy M. de Pauw. 

The Americans are most remarkable, because that many 
of them have no eyebrows, and none have beards; yet 
we must not infer that they are enfeebled in the organs of 
generation, since the Tartars and Chinese have almost 
the same characteristics. They are far, however, from 
being very fruitful, or much addicted to love. True 
it is, the Chinese and Tartars are not absolutely 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


103 


beardless. When they are about thirty a small penciled 
kind of whisker grows on the upper lip, and some 
scattered hairs at the end of the chin. 

Exclusive of the Esquimaux, who differ in gait, form, 
features, and manners, from other savages of North 
America, we may likewise call the Arkansans a variety, 
whom the French have generally named the handsome 
men. They are all tall and straight, have good features, 
without the least appearance of beards; have regular 
eyelids, blue eyes, and fine fair hair; while the neighbour¬ 
ing people are low of stature, have abject countenances, 
black eyes, the hair of the head black as ebony, and 
of the body thick and rough. 

Though the Peruvians are not very tall, and generally 
thick set, yet they are tolerably well made. There are 
many, it is true, who by being diminutive are monstrous. 
Some are deaf, dumb, blind, and idiots; and others want 
a limb when born. In all probability, the excessive 
labour to which they have been subjected by the barbarity 
of the Spaniards, has produced such numbers of defective 
men. Tyranny has an influence on the very physical 
temperament of slaves. Their nose is aquiline, their 
forehead narrow, their hair black, strong, smooth, and 
plentiful; their complexion an olive-red, the apple of 
the eye black, and the white not very clear. They never 
have any beard, for we cannot bestow that name on some 
short straggling hairs which sprout in old age; nor have 
either men or women the downy hair which generally 
appears after the age of puberty. In this they are 
distinguished from all people on earth, even from the 
Tartars and Chinese. As in eunuchs, it is the character 
of their degeneracy. 

Judging by the rage which the Americans have to 


104 


LAVATER'S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


mutilate and disfigure themselves, we should suppose 
they were all discontented with the proportions of their 
limbs and bodies. Not a single nation has been dis¬ 
covered in this fourth quarter of the globe, which has 
not adopted the custom of artificially changing either 
the form of the lips, the hollow of the ear, or the shape 
of the head, by forcing it to assume an extraordinary 
and ridiculous figure. 

There are savages whose heads are pyramidal or 
conical, with the top terminating in a point. Others 
have flat heads with large foreheads, and the back part 
flattened. This caprice seems to have been the most 
fashionable, at least it was the most common. Some 
Canadians had their heads perfectly spherical. Though 
the natural form of the head really approaches the 
circular, these savages who, by being thus distorted, 
acquired the appellation of bowl or bullet-head, do not 
appear less disgusting for having made the head too 
round, and perverted the original purpose of nature, to 
which nothing can be added, from which nothing can 
be taken away, without some essential error being the 
result, which is destructive to the animal. 

In short, we have seen, on the banks of the Maragnon, 
Americans with square or cubical heads; that is to say, 
flattened on the face, the top, the temples, and the 
occiput, which appears to be the last stage of human 
extravagance. 

It is not easy to conceive how it was possible to com¬ 
press and mould the bones of the skull into so many 
various forms, without most essentially injuring the 
seat of sense and the organs of reason, or occasioning 
either madness or idiotism; since we so often have 
examples, that violent contusions in the region of the 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


105 


temples have occasioned lunacy, and deprived the suf¬ 
ferers of intellectual capacity. For it is not true, as 
ancient narratives have affirmed, that all Indians with 
flat or sugar-loaf heads were really idiots. Had this 
been the case there must have been whole nations in 
America either foolish or frantic, which is impossible 
even in supposition. 

Observation by Lintz. 

To me it appears very remarkable that the Jews 
should have taken with them the marks of their country 
and race to all parts of the world; I mean their short, 
black, curly hair, and brown complexion. Their quick¬ 
ness of speech, haste and abruptness in all their actions, 
appear to proceed from the same causes. I imagine the 
Jews have more gall than other men. 

Extract from a Letter written by M. Fnessli, dated 
at Presburg. 

My observations have been directed (says this great 
designer and physiognomist) not to the countenance 
of nations only; being convinced from numberless 
experiments that the general form of the human body, 
its attitude and manner, the sunken or raised posi¬ 
tion of the head between or above the shoulders, the 
firm, the tottering, the hasty, or slow walk, may 
frequently be less deceitful signs of this or that cha¬ 
racter, than the countenance separately considered. I 
believe it possible so accurately to characterize man, 
from the calmest state of rest to the highest gradation 
of rage, terror, and pain, that from the carriage of 
the body, the turn of the head, and gestures in general, 
we shall be able to distinguish the Hungarian, the 


106 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Sclavonian, the Illyrian, the Wallachian; and to obtain 
a full and clear conception of the actual, and in 
general tlie prominent, characteristics of this or that 
nation. 

Extract of a Letter from Professor Camper. 

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to give 
you my particular rules for delineating various nations 
and ages with mathematical certainty, especially if I 
would add all that I have had occasion to remark 
concerning the beauty of the antiques. These rules I 
have obtained by constant observations on the skulls 
of different nations, of which I have a large collection, 
and by a long study of the antiques. 

To draw any head accurately in profile takes me 
much time. I have dissected the skulls of people 
lately dead, that I might be able to define the lines 
of the countenance, and the angle of these lines with 
the horizon. I was thus led to the discovery of the 
maximum and minimum of this angle. I began with 
the monkey, proceeded to the Negro and the European, 
till I ascended to the countenances of antiquity, and 
examined a Medusa, an Apollo, or a Venus de Medicis. 
This concerns only the profile. There is another 
difference in the breadth of the cheeks, which I have 
found to be the largest among the Calmucs, and much 
smaller among the Asiatic Negroes. The Chinese, 
and inhabitants of the Molucca and other Asiatic 
islands, appear to me to have broad cheeks with 
projecting jawbones; the under jawbone in particular 
very high, and- almost forming a right angle, which 
among Europeans is very obtuse, and still more so 
among the African Negroes. 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


107 


I have not hitherto been able to procure a real skull 
of an American, and therefore cannot say any thing 
on that subject. 

I am almost ashamed to confess that I have not yet 
been able accurately to draw the countenance of a 
Tew, although they are so very remarkable in their fea¬ 
tures ; nor have I yet obtained precision in delineating 
the Italian face. It is generally true that the upper and 
under jaw of the European is less broad than the 
breadth of the skull, and that among the Asiatics 
they are much broader; but I have not been able to 
determine the specific differences between European 
nations. 

By physiognomical sensations I have very frequently 
D5en able to distinguish the soldiers of different nations 
—the Scotchman, the Irishman, and the native of 
England; yet I have never been able to delineate 
the distinguishing traits. The people of our provinces 
are a mixture of all nations; but in the remote and 
separated cantons I find the countenance to be more 
flat, and extraordinarily high from the eyes upward. 


CHAPTER XXI. 

Extracts from the Manuscript of a Man of Literature 
at Darmstadt, on National Physiognomy. 

All tribes of people who live in uncultivated coun¬ 
tries, and consequently are pastoral, not assimilated in 
towns, would never be capable of an equal degree of 
cultivation with Europeans, though they did not live 
thus scattered. Were the shackles of slavery taken 
off, still their minds would eternally slumber; therefore 



108 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


whatever remarks we can make upon them must be 
pathognomonical (or physiognomical), and we must 
confine ourselves to their respective powers of mind, 
not being able to say much of their expression. 

Such people as do not bear our badges of servitude, 
are not so miserable as we suspect. Their species of 
slavery is more supportable in their mode of existence. 
They are incomparably better fed than German 
peasants, and have neither to contend with the cares 
of providing, nor the excesses of labour. As their 
race of horses exceeds ours in strength and size, so 
do their people those among us who have, or suppose 
they have, property. Their wants are few, and their 
understanding sufficient to supply the wants they have. 
The Eussian or Polish peasant is of necessity carpentei; 
tailor, shoemaker, mason, thatcher, &c.; and when we 
examine their performances we may easily judge of 
their capacities. Hence their aptitude at mechanical 
and handicraft professions, as soon as they are taught 
their principles. Invention of what is great they have 
no pretensions to; their mind. Eke a machine, is at 
rest when the necessity that^ sets it in motion no 
longer impels. 

Of the numerous nations subject to the Eussian 
sceptre, I shall omit those of the extensive Siberian 
districts, and confine myself to the Eussians properly 
so caUed, whose countries are bounded by Finland, 
Eastland, Livonia, and the borders of Asia. These 
are distinguishable by prodigious strength, firm sinews, 
broad breast, and colossal neck, which in a whole ship’s 
crew win be the same, resembEng the Earnesian 
Hercules; by their black, broad, thick, rough, strong 
hair, head and beard; their sunken eyes, black as pitch; 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


109 


their short forehead, compressed to the nose, with an 
arch. We often find thin lips, though in general they are 
pouting, wide, and thick. The women have high cheek 
hones, hollow temples, snub noses, and retreating arched 
foreheads, with very few traits of ideal beauty. Their 
power of propagation exceeds belief, and at a certain 
period of life both sexes become frequently corpulent. 

The Ukranians, of whom most of the regiments of 
Cossacks are formed, dwell in the centre. They are 
distinguished among the Eussians almost as the Jews 
are among Europeans. They generally have aquiline 
noses, and are nobly formed; amorous, yielding, crafty, 
and without strong passions; probably because, for 
some thousands of years, they have followed agriculture, 
have Eved in society, had a form of government, and 
inhabit a fruitful country, in a moderate climate re- 
sembhng that of France. Among aU these people the 
greatest activity and strength of body are united. They 
are as different from the German boor as quicksilver is 
from lead; and how our ancestors could suppose them 
to be stupid is inconceivable. 

Thus, too, the Turks resemble the Eussians. They are 
a mixture of the noblest blood of Asia Minor with the 
moie material and gross Tartar. The ISTatohan, of a 
spiritual nature, feeds on meditation: he will for days 
contemplate a single object, seat himself at the chess¬ 
board, or wrap himself up in the mantle of taciturnity. 
The eye, void of passion or great enterprise, abounds in 
all the penetration of benevolent cunning; the mouth 
eloquent; the hair of the head and beard, and the small 
neck, declare the flexibility of the man. 

The EngEshman is erect in his gait, and generally 
stands as if a stake were driven through his body. His 


110 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


nerves are strong, and lie is the best runner. He is dis¬ 
tinguished from all other men by the roundness and 
smoothness of his face. If he neither speak nor move, 
he seldom declares the capability and mind he possesses 
in so superior a degree. His silent eye seeks not to 
please. His hair, coat, and character, are alike smooth. 
Hot cunning, but on his guard; and, perhaps, but little 
colouring is necessary to deceive him on any occasion. 
Like the bull-dog, he does not bark; but, if irritated, 
rages. As he wishes not for more esteem than he merits, 
so he detests the false pretensions of his neighbours, who 
would arrogate excellence they do not possess. Desirous 
of private happiness, he disregards public opinion, and 
obtains a character of singularity. His imagination, like 
a seacoal fire, is not the splendour that enlightens a 
region, but expands genial warmth. Perseverance in 
study, and pertinacity for centuries in fixed principles, 
have raised and maintained, the British spirit, as well as 
the British government, trade, manufactures, and marine. 
He has punctuality and probity, not trifling away his 
time to establish false principles, or making a parade 
with a vicious hypothesis. 

In the temperament of nations the French class is 
that of the sanguine. Frivolous, benevolent, and osten¬ 
tatious, the Frenchman forgets not his inoffensive 
parade till old age has made him wise. At all times 
disposed to enjoy life, he is the best of companions. He 
pardons himself much; and therefore pardons others if 
they will but grant that they are foreigners, and he is a 
Frenchman. His gait is dancing, his speech without 
accent, and his ear incurable. His imagination pursues 
the consequences of small things with the rapidity of 
the second-hand of a stop-watch, but seldom gives those 


NATIONAL PHYSIOGNOMY. 


Ill 


loud, strong, reverberating strokes which proclaim new 
discoveries to the world. Wit is his inheritance. His 
countenance is open, and at first sight speaks a thousand 
pleasant, amiable things. Silent he cannot be, either 
with eye, tongue, or feature. His eloquence is often 
deafening; but his good-humour casts a veil over all his 
failings. His form is equally distinct from that of other 
nations, and difficult to describe in words. Ho other man 
has so little of the firm or deep traits, or so much motion. 
He is all appearance, aU gesture; therefore the first 
impression seldom deceives, but declares who and what 
he is. VHis imagination is incapable of high flights, and 
the sublime in all arts is to him offence.!' Hence his 
dislike to whatever is antique in art or literature, his 
deafness to true music, his blindness to the higher 
beauties of painting. His last most marking trait is, 
that he is astonished at every thing, and cannot 
comprehend how it is possible men should be other 
than they are at Paris. 

The countenance of the Italian is soul, his speech 
exclamation, his motion gesticulation. His form is the 
noblest, and his country the true seat of beauty. His 
short forehead, his strong marked eyebones, the fine 
contour of his mouth, give a kindred claim to the 
antiquities of Greece. The ardour of his eyes denotes 
that the beneficent sun brings forth fruit more perfect in 
Italy than beyond the Alps. His imagination is ever in 
motion, ever sympathizing with surrounding objects, and 
as in the poem of Ariosto the whole works of creation 
are reflected, so are they generally in the national spirit. 
That power which could bring forth such a work, 
appears to me the general representative of genius. It 
sings all, and from it all things are sung. The sublime 


112 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


in arts is the birthright of the Italian. Modern religion 
and politics may have degraded and falsified his charac¬ 
ter, may have rendered the vulgar faithless and crafty, 
but the superior part of the nation abounds in the 
noblest and best of men. 

The Dutchman is tranquil, patient, confined, and 
appears to will nothing. His walk and eye are long 
silent, and an hour of his company will scarcely produce 
a thought. He is little troubled by the tide of passions, 
and he will contemplate unmoved the parading streamers 
of all nations sailing before his eyes. Quiet and com¬ 
petence are his gods; therefore those arts alone which 
can procure these blessings employ his faculties. His 
laws, political and commercial, have originated in that 
spirit of security which maintains him in the possession 
of what he has gained. He is tolerant in all that relates 
to opinion, if he be but left peaceably to enjoy his 
property, and to assemble at the meeting-house of his 
sect. The character of the ant is so applicable to the 
Dutch, that to this literature itself conforms in Holland. 
All poetical powers, exerted in great works or small, are 
foreign to this nation. They endure pleasure from the 
perusal of poetry, but produce none. I speak of the 
TJnited Provinces, and not of the Flemings, whose jovial 
character is in the midway between the Italian and 
French. A high forehead, half-open eyes, full nose, 
hanging cheeks, wide open mouth, fleshy lips, broad 
chin and large ears, I believe to be characteristic of 
the Dutchman. 

A German thinks it disgraceful not to know every 
thing, and dreads nothing so much as to be thought a 
fool. Probity often makes him appear a blockhead. Of 
nothing is he so proud as of honest moral under- 








Vi 




V 



















































DESCRIPTION OF PLATE lY. 


113 


standing. According to modern tactics he is certainly 
the best soldier, and the teacher of all Europe. 
He is allowed to be the greatest inventor, and often 
with so little ostentation, that foreigners have for 
centuries, unknown to him, robbed him* of his glory. 
From the age of Tacitus, a willing dependent, he has 
exerted faculties for the service of his masters whioh 
others only exert for freedom and property. His counte¬ 
nance does not, like a painting in fresco, speak at a 
distance; but he must be sought and studied. His good 
nature and benevolence are often concealed under ap¬ 
parent moroseness, and a third person is always neces¬ 
sary to draw off the veil, and show him as he is. He is 
difficult to move, and without the aid of old wine is 
silent. He does not suspect his own worth, and wonders 
when it ’is discovered by others. CFidelity, industry, and 
secresy, are his principal characteristics. Hot having 
wit, he indulges his sensibility. Moral good is the 
colouring wEich he requires in all acts. His epic and 
lyric spirit walk in unfrequented paths. Hence his 
great, and frequently gigantic sense, which seldom per¬ 
mits him the clear aspect of enthusiasm, or the glow 
of splendour. Moderate in the use of this world’s 
delights, he has little propensity to sensuality and extra¬ 
vagance ; but he is therefore formal, and less social than 
his neighbour. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

Dcscription^pf Plate IV. 

Number 1. 

We may certainly call noses arched and pointed lil^e 
this, witty; but the wit is restrained and moderated by 



114 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the acute understanding of the forehead, the sincere 
religion of the eye, and the phlegm of the chin. 

Number 2. 

The descent from the nose to the lips in the phleg¬ 
matic countenance is unphlegmatic and heterogeneous ; 
nor does the curvature of the upper eyelids sufficiently 
agree with the temperament. The outlines of the 
phlegmatic are relaxed, obtuse, and hanging ; the outline 
of the eye oblique. Be it understood there are other 
tokens, and that all phlegmatic persons have not these 
signs, although whoever has them is certainly phleg¬ 
matic. If the projecting under lip, which is itself a 
sign of phlegm, since it is evidently a superabundance 
and not a want of matter, be angular, and sharply 
delineated, then it is a sign of choleric phlegm; that is 
to say, of the ebullition of humidity. If it be flexible, 
obtuse, powerless, and drooping, it is then pure phlegm. 
The forehead, nose, chin, and hair, are here very phleg¬ 
matic. 


Number 3. 

The choleric ought to have a more angularly pointed 
nose, and lips more sharply delineated. The character 
of choler is much contained in the drawing of the eyes, 
either when the pupil projects, and much of the under 
part of the white is visible, or when the upper eyelid 
retreats, so that it scarcely can be perceived; when the 
eyes open, or when the eye is sunken, and the outlines 
are very definite and firm, without much curvature. In 
this example, the forehead, eyebrows, nose, chin, and 
hair, are very choleric; but the upper part of the coun¬ 
tenance more so than the under. 


DESCRIPTION OF PLATE IV. 


116 


Number 4. 

The sanguine needs but little correction, except that 
the nose ought to he a little farther from the mouth, and 
the eye not so choleric. The levity of the sanguine 
temperament waves, flutters upon the lip, which, how¬ 
ever, at the bottom is too phlegmatic. 

Number 5. 

There ought to he a deeper cavity above the nose, 
and also of the jawbone, beside the ear, in this melan¬ 
cholic countenance. I have observed in many melan¬ 
cholic persons, that the nose declines towards the lips; 
nor have I seen this in any who were not sometimes 
inclined to the melancholic, who likewise have projecting 
under lips, and small, hut not very round nor very 
fleshy chins. 

There are melancholy persons with very sanguine 
temperaments; men of flne irritability and moral feel¬ 
ings, who are hurried into vices which they deeply 
abhor, and which they have not the power to withstand. 
The gloomy and dispirited character of such is percep¬ 
tible in the eye that shuns examination, and the wrinkles 
of the forehead standing opposite to each other. Persons 
of a real melancholic temperament generally have their 
mouths shut, but the lips are always somewhat open in 
the middle. Many melancholy persons have small 
nostrils, and seldom well-arranged, clean, white teeth. 

Number 6. 

Strength and ardour, enterprise, courage, contempt of 
danger, fortitude of the irritated and irritable. This 
strength is rather oppressive than patient and enduring; 


116 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


it proclaims its own qualities, respectable in a state of 
rest, terrible when roused. 


CHAPTEE XXIII. 

Eesemblance between Parents and Children. 

The resemblance between parents and children is 
very commonly remarkable. Eamily physiognomy is as 
undeniable as national. To doubt this is to doubt what 
is self-evident; to wish to interpret it is to wish to ex¬ 
plore the inexplicable secret of existence. Striking and 
frequent as the resemblance between parents and 
children is, yet have the relations between the characters 
and countenances of families never been inquired into. 
Xo one has, to my knowledge, made any regular obser¬ 
vations on this subject. I must also confess that I 
myself have made but few with that circumstantial 
attention which is necessary. All I have to remark is 
as follows :— 

When the father is considerably stupid, and the 
mother exceedingly the reverse, then will most of the 
children be endured with extraordinary understanding. 

When the father is good, truly good, the children will 
in general be weU-disposed; at least most of them will 
be benevolent. 

The son generally appears to inherit moral goodness 
from the good father, and intelligence from the intelli¬ 
gent mother; the daughter partakes of the character 
of the mother. 

If we wish to find the most certain marks of re¬ 
semblance between parents and children, they should be 
observed within an^hour or two after birth. We may 
then perceive whom the child most resembles in its 



FAMILY PHYSIOGNOMY. 


117 


formation. The most essential resemblance is usually 
afterwards lost, and does not perhaps appear again for 
many years ; or not till after death. 

When children, as they increase in years, visibly 
increase in the resemblance of form and features to their’ 
parents, we cannot doubt but there is an increasing resem¬ 
blance of character. How much soever the characters 
of children may appear unlike that of the parents they 
resemble, yet will this dissimilarity be found to origi¬ 
nate in external circumstances ; and the variety of these 
must be great indeed, if the difference of character is 
not at length overpowered by the resemblance of form. 

I believe that from the strongly delineated father the 
firmness and the kind (I do not say the form, but the 
kind) of bones and muscles are derived ; and from the 
strongly delineated mother the kind of nerves and form 
of countenance, if the imagination and love of the 
mother have not fixed themselves too deeply in the 
countenance of the man. 

Certain forms of countenance, in children, appear for 
a time undecided whether they shall take the resem¬ 
blance of the father or the mother; in which case I will 
grant that external circumstances, preponderating love 
for the father or mother, or a greater degree of inter¬ 
course with either, may influence the form. 

We sometimes see children who long retain a remark¬ 
able resemblance to the father, but at length change, and 
become more like the mother. I undertake not to 
expound the least of the difficulties that occu;? on this 
subject; but the most modest philosophy may be per¬ 
mitted to compare uncommon cases with those which 
are known, even though they were inexplicable; and this, 

I believe, is all that philosophy can and ought to do. 


118 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


We know that all longings or mother’s marks, and 
whatever may he considered as of the same nature, do 
not proceed from the father, but from the imagination of 
the mother. We also know that children most resemble 
the father only when the mother has a very lively imagi¬ 
nation, and love for or fear of the husband. Therefore, 
as has before been observed, - it appears that the matter 
and quantum of the power and of the life proceed from 
the father; and from the imagination of the mother, 
sensibility, the kind of nerves, the form, and the appear- 
i nee. 

There are certain forms and features of countenance 
which are long propagated, and others which as suddenly 
disappear. The beautiful and the deformed (I do not 
say forms of countenances, but what is generally sup¬ 
posed to be beauty and deformity) are not the most 
easily propagated; neither are the middling and insig¬ 
nificant; but the great and the minute are easily 
inherited, and of long duration. 

Parents with small noses may have children with the 
largest and strongest defined; but the father or mother 
seldom, on the contrary, have a very strong, that is to 
say, large-boned nose, which is not communicated at 
least to one of their children, and which does not remain 
in the family, especially when it is in the female line. 
It may seem to have been lost for many years, but soon 
or late whl again make its appearance, and its resem¬ 
blance to the original wiU be particularly visible a day 
or two after death. 

Where any extraordinary vivacity appears in the eyes 
of the mother, there is almost a certainty that these eyes 
will become hereditary; for the imagination of the mother 
is delighted with nothing so much as with, the beauty 


FAMILY PHYSIOGNOMY. 


119 


of lier own eyes. Physiognomieal sensation- has been 
hitherto much more generally directed to the eye than 
to the nose and form of the face; but if ijYomen should 
once be induced to examine the nose and form of the 
face, as assiduously as they have done their eyes, it is 
to be expected that the former will be no less strikingly 
hereditary than the latter. 

Well-arched and short foreheads are easy of inheri¬ 
tance, but not of long duration; and here the proverb is 
applicable, Quod citb Jit, citb perit. (Soon got, soon gone.) 

It is equally certain and inexplicable, that some 
remarkable physiognomies of the most fruitful persons 
have been wholly lost to their posterity; and it is as 
certain and inexplicable that others are never lost. Nor 
is it less remarkable that certain strong countenances of 
the father or mother disappear in the children, and per¬ 
fectly revive in the grandchildren. 

As a proof of the powers of the imagination of the 
mother, we sometimes see that a woman shall have 
children by the second husband, which shall resemble 
the first at least in the general appearance. The Italians, 
however, are manifestly too extravagant when they sup¬ 
pose children who strongly resemble their father are 
base-born. They say that the mother, during the com¬ 
mission of a crime so shameful, wholly employs her 
imagination concerning the possibility of surprise by 
and the image of, her husband. But were this fear so 
to act, the form of the children must not only have the 
very image of the husband, but also his appearance of 
rage and revenge, without which the adulterous wife 
could not imagine the being surprised by, or image of, 
her husband. It is this appearance, this rage that she 
fears, and not the man. 


120 


LAVATEK’S PHYSIOGXOMr. 


Natural children generally resemble one of tlieir 
parents more than the legitimate. 

The more there is of individual love, of pure, faithful, 
mild affection, the more is this love reciprocal and 
unconstrained between the father and mother—which 
reciprocal love and affection imply a certain degree of 
imagination, and the capacity of receiving impressions— 
the more will the countenances of the children appear 
to be composed of the features of the parents. 

The sanguine, of all the temperaments, is the most 
easily inherited, and with it volatility; and, being once 
introduced, much industry and suffering will be necessary 
to exterminate this volatility. 

The natural timidity of the mother may easily com¬ 
municate the melancholy temperament of the father. 
Be it understood that this is easy if, in the decisive 
moment, the mother be suddenly seized by some pre¬ 
dominant fear; and that it is less communicable when 
the fear is less hasty and more reflective. Thus we find 
those mothers who, during the whole time of their preg¬ 
nancy, are most in dread of producing monstrous or 
marked children, because they remember to have seen 
objects that excited abhorrence, generally have the best 
formed and freest from marks; for the fear, though real, 
was the fear of reason, and not the sudden effect of an 
object exciting abhorrence rising instantaneously to sight. 

When both parents have given a deep root to the 
choleric temperament in a family, it may probably be 
some centuries before it be a^ain moderated. Phlegm 
is not so easily inherited, even though both father and 
mother should be phlegmalJ^; for there are certain 
moments of life when the phlegmatic acts with its whol^ 
power, though it acts thus but rarely, and these moments 


FAMILY PHYSIOGNOMY. 


121 


may and must have their effects; hut nothing appears 
more easy of inheritance than activity and industry, 
when these have their origin in organization, and the 
necessity of producing alteration. It will he long before 
an industrious couple, to whom not only a livelihood, 
but business, is in itself necessary, shall not have a 
single descendant with the like qualities, as such mothers 
are generally prolific. 


CHAPTER XXIV. 

Remarks on the Opinions of Buffon, Haller, and Bonnet, 
concerning the Resemblance between Parents 
and Children. 

The theory or hypothesis of Buffon, concerning 
the cause of the human form, is well known, which 
Haller has abridged and more clearly explained in the 
following manner:— 

“ Both sexes have their semen, in which are active 
particles of a certain form. Erom the union of these the 
fruit of the womb arises. These particles contain the 
resemblance of all the parts of the father or mother. 
They are by nature separated from the rude and un¬ 
formed particles of the human juices, and are impressed 
with the form of all the parts of the body of the father 
or mother. Hence arises the resemblance of children to 
their parents. This will account for the mixture of the 
features of father and mother in the children; for 
the spots of animals, when the male and female are of 
different colours ; for th^j^ulatto produced by a Negro 
and a White.; and for many other phenomena difficult 
to be resolved. 



122 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Should it be asked how these particles can assume 
the internal structure of the body of the father, since 
they can properly be only the images of the hollow 
vessels, it may be answered that we know not all the 
powers of nature, and that she may have preserved to 
herself, though she has concealed it from her scholar, 
man, the art of making internally models and impres¬ 
sions which shall express the whole solidity of the 
model.” 

Haller, in his preface to Bufifon’s Natural History, has 
in my opinion indisputably confuted this system. But 
he has not only forborne to elucidate the resemblance 
between fathers and children, but while opposing Buffon, 
he has spoken so much on the natural physiological 
dissimilarity of the human body, that he appears to have 
denied this resemblance. Buffon’s hypothesis offended 
all philosophy; and though we cannot entirely approve 
the theory of Bonnet, yet he has very effectually 
opposed the incongruities of Buffon, to which Buffon 
himself could scarcely give any serious faith. But he, 
as we shall soon see, has either avoided the question of 
resemblance between parents and children, or, in order 
to strengthen his own system, has rather sought to 
palliate than to answer difficulties. 

Bonket, concerning organized Bodies. 

“ Are the germs of one and the same species of 
organized bodies perfectly like each other, or individu¬ 
ally distinct ? Are they only distinct in the organs 
which characterize sex, or have they a resembling 
difference to each other, such as we observe in indi¬ 
vidual substances of the same species of plants or 
animals ? ” 


FAMILY PHYSIOGNOMY. 


123 


Answek. —“ If we consider the infinite variety to be 
observed in all the products of nature, the latter will 
appear most probable. The differences which are to be 
observed in the individuals of the same species, probably 
depend more on the primitive form of the germs than 
in the connexion of the sexes.” 

On the resemblance between Children and their Parents. 

I must own that, by the foregoing hypothesis, I 
have not been successful in explaining the resemblance 
of features found between parents and children. But 
are not these features very ambiguous? Do we not 
suppose that to be the cause which probably is not so ? 
The father is deformed, the son is deformed after the 
same manner, and it is therefore concluded that defor¬ 
mity is inherited. This may be true, but it may be 
false. The deformity of each may arise from very 
different causes, and these causes may be infinitely 
varied. 

“ It is not so difficult to explain hereditary diseases 
We can easily conceive that defective juices may pro¬ 
duce defective germs; and, when the same parts of the 
body are affected by disease in father or mother, and 
in child, this arises from the similar conformation of 
the parts, by which they are subject to like inconve¬ 
niences. Besides, the misshapen body often originates 
in diseases being hereditary, which much diminishes 
the first difficulty. For, since the juices conducted to 
those parts are of a bad quality, the parts must be more 
or less in formed, according as they are more or less 
capable of being affected by these juices.” 


124 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


EEFLECTION. 

Bonnet cannot find tlie origin of family likeness in kis 
system. Let ns, kowever, take tkis kis system in tke part 
wkere ke finds tke origin of kereditary disease. SkaU tke 
defective juices of fatker or motker very muck alter tke 
germ, and produce, in tke very parts wkere tke fatker or 
motker is injured, important ckanges of bad formation, 
more or less, according to tke capability of tke germ, and 
its power of resistance ? And skall tke kealtky juices 
of tke parent in no manner affect tke germ? Wky 
skould not tke kealtky juices be as active as the un¬ 
healthy? Why skould they not introduce the same 
qualities in miniature which the fatker and motker 
have in tke gross; since the fatker and motker assimilate 
the nutriment they receive to their own nature, and 
since tke seminal juices are tke spiritual extract of all 
their juices and powers, as we have just reason to con¬ 
clude from tke most continued and accurate observations ? 
Wky skould they not as naturally, and as powerfully, 
act upon tke germ, to produce all possible resemblance ? 
But which resemblance is infinitely varied, by different¬ 
ly changeable and changed circumstances; so that tke 
germ continually preserves sufficient of its own original 
nature and properties, yet is always very distinct from 
tke parents, and sometimes even seems to have derived 
very little from them, which may happen from a thou¬ 
sand accidental causes or ckanges. 

Hence family resemblance and dissimilarity 'being 
summarily considered, we skall find that nature, wholly 
employed to propagate, appears to be entirely directed 
to produce an equilibrium between tke individual power 
of the germ in its first formation, and tke resembling 


FAMILY PHYSIOGNOMY. 


125 


power of the parents; but the originality of the first 
form of the germ may not wholly disappear before 
the too great power of resemblance to the parents, but 
that they may mutually concur, and both be subject to 
numberless circumstances, which may increase or di¬ 
minish their respective powers, in order that the riches 
of variety, and the utility of the creature, and its de¬ 
pendence on the whole and the general Creator, may be 
the greater and more predominant. 

Every observation on the resemblance between parents 
and children, which I have been enabled to make, con¬ 
vinces me that neither the theories of Bonnet nor Buffon 
give any systematic explanation of phenomena, the 
existence of which cannot be denied by the sophistry of 
hjrpothesis. Diminish the difficulties as much as we 
will, facts will still stare us in the face. If the germ 
exist preformed in the mother, can this germ, at that 
time, have physiognomy ? Can it, at that time, resemble 
the future, promiscuous, first, or second father ? Is it 
not perfectly indifferent to either ? or, if the physiogno¬ 
mical germ exist in the father, how can it sometimes 
resemble the mother, sometimes the father, often both, 
and often neither ? 

I am of opinion that something germ-hke, or a whole 
capable of receiving the human form, must previously 
exist in the mother; but which is nothing more than the 
foundation of the future fatherly or motherly I know 
not what, and is the efficient cause of the future living 
fruit. This germ-like something, which, most especially 
constituted agreeable to the human form, is analogous to 
the nature and temperature of the mother, receives a 
peculiar individual personal physiognomy, according to 
the propensities of the father or mother, the disposition 


126 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


of the moment of conception, and probably of many 
other future decisive moments. 

Still much remains to the freedom and predisposition 
of man. He may deprave or improve his state of the 
juices, he may calm or agitate his mind, may awaken 
every sensation of love, and by various modes increase 
or relax them. Yet I think that neither the nature of 
the bones, nor the muscles and nerves, consequently the 
character, depends on the physiognomical preformation’ 
precediug generation; at least they are far from de¬ 
pending on these alone, though I allow the organizable, 
the primitive form, always has a peculiar individuahty, 
which is only capable of receiving certain subtile in¬ 
fluences, and which must reject others. 


CHAPTEE XXV. 

Observations on the New-born, the Dying, and the Dead. 

I HAVE had opportunities of remarking in some 
children, about an hour after a birth attended with no 
difficulties, a striking though infantine resemblance in 
the proflle to the profile of the father; and that in a 
few days this resemblance had nearly disappeared. The 
impression of the open air, nutriment, and perhaps of 
position, had so far altered the outlines that the child 
seemed entirely different. 

Of these children I saw two dead, the one about six 
weeks, and the other about four years old; and, nearly 
twelve hours after death, I observed the same profile 
which I had before remarked an hour after birth; with 
this difference, th^ the profile of the dead child, as is 
natural, was something more tense and fixed than the 



THE NEW-BORN, DYING, AND DEAD. 127 

living. A part of this resemblance, however, on the 
third day was remarkably gone. 

One man of fifty, and another of seventy years of age, 
who fell under my observation while they were living 
and alter death, appeared while living not to have the 
least resemblance to their sons, and whose countenances 
seemed to be of a quite different class; yet, the second 
day after death, the profile of the one had a striking 
resemblance to that of his eldest, and of the other to 
the profile of his third son, as much so as the profile of 
the dead children before mentioned resembled the living 
profile an hour after birth, stronger indeed, and, as a 
painter would say, harder. On the third day here also 
a part of the resemblance vanished. 

I have uniformly observed, among the many dead 
jiersons I have seen, that sixteen, eighteen, or twenty- 
four hours after death, according to the disease, they 
have had a more beautiful form, better defined, more 
proportionate, harmonized, homogeneous, more noble, 
more exalted, than they ever had during life. 

It occurred to me that there might be in all men an 
original physiognomy, subject to be disturbed by the 
ebb and flow of accident and passion; and is not this 
restored by the calm of death, like as troubled waters, 
being again left at rest, become clear ? 

I have observed some among the dying who had been 
the reverse of noble or great during life, and who 
some hours before their death, or perhaps some moments, 
(one was in a delirium,) have had an inexpressible 
ennobling of the countenance. Every body saw a new 
man; colouring, drawing, and grace—all was new, all 
bright as the morning; beyond exJ^Ssion noble and 
exalted; the most inattentive must see, the most insen- 


128 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


sible feel, tlie image of God. I saw it break forth and 
shine through the ruins of corruption, was obliged to 
turn aside and adore in silence. Yes, glorious God; 
still art thou there, in the weakest, most fallible men! 


CHAPTER XXVL 

Of the Influence of Countenance on Countenance, 

As the gestures of our friends and intimates become 
our own, so in like manner does their appearance. 
Whatever we love we would assimilate to ourselves; 
and whatever in the circle of affection does not change 
us into itself, that we change, as far as may be, into 
ourselves. 

All things act upon us, and we act upon all things, 
but nothing has so much influence as what we love; 
and, among all objects of affection, nothing acts so 
forcibly as the countenance of man. Its conformity to 
our countenance makes it most worthy our affection. 
How might it act upon, how attract our attention, had it 
not some marks, discoverable or undiscoverable, similar 
to, at least of the same kind, with the form and feature 
of our own countenance 1 

Without, however, wishing farther to penetrate into 
what is impenetrable, or to define what is inscrutable, 
the fact is indubitable, that countenances attract 
countenances, and also that countenances 'repel coun¬ 
tenances; ^that similarity of features between two 
sympathetic and affectionate men, increase with the de¬ 
velopment and mutual communication- of their peculiar 
individual sensations.^ The reflection, if I may so say. 



INFLUENCE OF COUNTENANCE. 


129 


of the person beloved remains upon the countenance of 
the affectionate. 

The resemblance frequently exists only in a single 
point—in the character of mind and countenance. A 
resemblance in the system of the bones presupposes a 
resemblance of the nerves and muscles. 

Dissimilar education may affect the latter so much, 
that the point of attraction may be invisible to the 
imphysiognomical eye. Suffer the two resembling forms 
to approach, and they will reciprocally attract and repel 
each other; remove every intervening obstacle, and 
nature will soon prevail They wiU recognize each 
other; and rejoice in the flesh of their flesh, and the 
bone of their bone: with hasty steps will proceed to 
assimilate. Such countenances also, which are very 
different from each other, may communicate, attract, and 
acquire resemblance; nay, their likeness may become 
more striking than that of the former, if they happen to 
be more flexible, more capable, and to have greater 
sensibility. 

This resemblance of features, in consequence of 
mutual affection, is ever the result of internal nature 
and organization, and, therefore, of the character of the 
persons. It ever has its foundation in a preceding, 
perhaps imperceptible resemblance, which might never 
have been animated or suspected, had it not been set in 
motion by the presence of the sympathetic being. 

To give the character of those countenances which 
most easily receive and communicate resemblance, would 
be of infinite importance. It cannot but be known that 
there are countenances that attract all, others that repel 
all, and a third kind which are indifferent. The all- 
repelling render the ignoble countenances, over which 


130 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


they have continued influence, more ignoble. The in¬ 
different allows no change. The all-attracting either 
receive, give, or reciprocally give and receive. The first 
change a little, the second more, the third most. These 
are the souls (says Hemsterhuys the younger) which, 
happily or unhappily, add the most exquisite discern¬ 
ment to that excessive internal elasticity which occa¬ 
sions them to wish and feel immoderately; that is to 
say, the souls which are so modified, or situated, that 
their attractive force meets the fewest obstacles in its 
progress.” 

To study the influence of countenance, this intercourse 
of mind would be of the utmost importance. I have 
found the progress of resemblance most remarkable 
w^en two persons, the one richly communicative; the 
other apt to receive, have lived a considerable time to¬ 
gether without foreign intervention; when he who 
gave had given all, or he who received could receive no 
more, physiognomical resemblance had attained its 
grand point. 

Youth, irritable, and easy to be won, let me here say 
a word to thee. Oh! pause, consider, throw not thyself 
too hastily into the arms of an untried friend. A gleam 
of sympathy and resemblance may easily deceive thee. 
If the man who is thy second self have not yet appeared, 
be not rash, thou shalt find him at the appointed hour. 
Being found, he will attract thee to himself, will give and 
receive whatever is communicable. The ardour of his 
eyes will nurture thine, and the gentleness of his voice 
temper thy too piercing tones. His love will shine in 
thy countenance, and his image will appear in thee. 
Thou wilt become what he is, and yet remain what thou 
art. Affection wiU make qualities in him visible to thee, 


INFLUENCE OF COUNTENANCE. 


131 


which never could he seen by an uninterested eye. This 
capability of remarking, of feeling what there is of 
divine in him, is a power which will make thy counte¬ 
nance assume his resemblance. ^ 


CHAPTEE XXVII. 

On the Influence of the Imagination on the Countenance. 

I MUST not leave this subject wholly in silence; but 
must content myself with saying only a few words, on 
which volumes might be written. The little, the nothing 
I have to say upon it, can only act as an inducement to 
deeper meditations on a theme so profound. 

Our own countenance is actuated by imagination, 
rendering it in some measm^e resemblmg the beloved or 
hated image which is living, present, and fleeting before 
us, and is within the circle of our immediate activity. 
If a man deeply in love, and supposing himself alone, 
were r umin ating on his beloved mistress, to whom his 
imagination might lend some charms which, if present, 
he would be unable to discover; were such a person 
observed by a man of penetration, it is probable that 
traits of the mistress might be seen in the countenance 
of this meditating lover. So might, in the cruel 
features of revenge, the features of the enemy be read, 
whom imagination represents as present. And thus is 
the countenance a picture of the characteristic features 
of all persons exceedingly loved or hated. 

It is possible that an eye less penetrating than that 
of an angel, may read the image of the Creator in the 
countenance of a truly pious person. He who languishes 
after Christ, the more lively, the more distinctly, the 



132 


eavater’s physiognomy. 


more sublimely, be represents to himself the very pre¬ 
sence and image of Christ, the greater resemblance will 
his own countenance take of this image. The image of 
imagination often acts more effectually than the real 
presence; and whoever has seen him of whom we speak, 
the great HIM, though it were but an instantaneous 
glimpse, oh ! how incessantly will the imagination repro¬ 
duce his image in the countenance ! 

Our imagination also acts upon other countenances. 
The imagination of the mother acts upon the child; and 
lienee men long have attempted to influence the imagi¬ 
nation for the production of beautiful children. In my 
opinion, however, it is not so much the beauty of 
surrounding forms as the interest taken concerning 
forms in certain moments : and here, again, it is not so 
much the imagination that acts as the spirit, that being 
only the organ of the spirit. Thus, it is true that it is 
the spirit that guickeneth the flesh, and the image of the 
flesh (merely considered as such) proflteth nothing. 

A look of love from the sanctuary of the soul, has 
certainly greater forming power than hours of deliberate 
contemplation of the most beautiful images. This form¬ 
ing look, if so I may caU it, can as little be premedi- 
tatedly given, as any other naturally beautiful form can 
be imparted by a studious contemplation in the looking- 
glass. All that creates and is profoundly active in the 
inner man, must be internal, and be communicated from 
above; as I believe it suffers itself not to be occasioned, 
at least not by forethought, circumspection, or wisdom 
in the agent, to produce such effects. Beautiful forms 
or abortions are neither of them the work of art or 
study, but of intervening causes, of the quick-guiding 
pro^ddence, the pre-determining God. 


EFFECTS OF IMAGINATION ON THE FOEM. 133 

Endeavour to act upon affection instead of tlie senses. 
If thou canst but incite love, it will of itself seek and 
find the powers of creation; but tbis very love must 
itself be innate before it can be awakened. Perhaps, 
however, the moment of tbis awakening is not in our 
power; and therefore to those who would, by plan and 
method, effect that which is in itself so extraordinary, and 
imagine they have had I know not what wise and phy¬ 
siological circumspection when they first awaken love, I 
might exclaim in the words of the enraptured songster: 

I charge you, 0 ye daughters of Jerus^em,by the roes 
and the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up nor awake 
my love till he please.” Here behold the forming 
genius—“Behold he cometh, leaping upon the moun¬ 
tains, skipping upon the hills, like a young hart.” 

Unforeseen moments, rapid as the lightning, in my 
opinion form and deform. Creation of every kind is 
momentaneous; the development, nutriment, change, 
improving, injuring, is the work of time, art, industry, 
and education. Creative power suffers itself not to be 
studied ; creation cannot be premeditated. Marks may 
be moulded, but living essence, within and without re¬ 
sembling itself, the image of God, must be created, 
born, “ not of the will of the flesh, nor of the wiU of man, 
but of God.” 


CHAPTEE XXYIII. 

The Effects of the Imagination on the Human Form, 

That by the strength of imagination there are marks 
communicated by mothers to children during pregnancy, 
is equally true and comprehensible; that there are 



134 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


images, animals, fruit, or other substances, on the body 
of the child ; marks of the hand on the very parts where 
the pregnant person has been suddenly touched; 
aversion to things which have occasioned disgust in the 
mother; and a continued scurvy communicated to the 
child by the unexpected sight of a putrid animal. So 
many marks on the bodies of children, arising not from 
imaginary but real accidents, must oblige us to own that 
there is truth in that which is inconceivable. There¬ 
fore the imagination of the mother acts upon the child. 

Of the innumerable examples that might be produced, 
I shall cite the twcHfoUowing :— 

A woman during the time of her pregnancy was en¬ 
gaged in a card party, and only wanted the ace of spades 
to win all that was staked. It so happened, in the 
change of cards, that the so-much-wished-for ace was 
given her. Her joy at this success had such an effect 
upon her imagination, that the child of which she was 
pregnant, when born, had the ace of spades depicted in 
the apple of the eye, and without injury to the organ of 
sight. 

The following anecdote is certainly true, and still 
more astonishing:— 

A lady of Keinthal had, during her pregnancy, a 
desire to see the execution of a man who was sentenced 
to have his right hand cut off before he was beheaded. 
She saw the hand severed from the body, and instantly 
turned away and went home, without waiting to see the 
death that was to follow. This lady bore a daughter, 
who was living at the time this fragment was written, 
and who had only one hand. The right hand came 
away with the after-birth. 

Moral marks as well as physical are perhaps possible. 


EFFECTS OF IMAGINATION ON THE FORM. 135 

I have heard of a physician who never failed to steal 
something from all the chambers through which he 
passed, which he would afterwards forget; and in the 
evening his wife, who searched his pockets, would find 
keys, snuff-boxes, dtuis-cases, scissors, thimbles, spec¬ 
tacles, buckles, spoons, and other trinkets, which she 
restored to the owners. I have been likewise told of a 
child who, at two years of age, was adopted when beg¬ 
ging at the door of a noble family, received an excellent 
education, and became a most worthy man except that 
he could not forbear to steal. The mothers of these 
two extraordinary thieves must, during pregnancy, have 
had an extraordinary desire to pilfer. It will be self- 
evident that, however insufferable such men are in a 
state of society, they are rather unfortunate than 
wicked. Their actions may be as involuntary as 
mechanical, and, in the sight of God, probably as 
innocent as the customary motions of our fingers when 
we tear bits of paper, or do any other indifferent, 
thoughtless action. 

The moral worth of an action must be estimated by 
its intention, as the political worth must by its con¬ 
sequences. As little injury as the ace of spades, if the 
story be true, did to the countenance of the child, as 
little probably did this thievish propensity to the heart.. 
Such a person certainly had no roguish look, no 
avaricious, downcast, sly, pilfering aspect, like one who 
is both soul and body a thief. I have not yet seen any 
man of such an extraordinary character, and therefore 
cannot judge of his physiognomy i6y experience; yet we 
have reason previously to conclude, that men so uncom¬ 
mon must bear some marks in their countenance of such 
deviation of character. 


136 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Those extraordinary large or small persons, by us 
called giants and dwarfs, should perhaps be classed 
among these active and passive effects of the imagi¬ 
nation. Though giants and dwarfs are not properly 
born such, yet it is possible, however incomprehensible, 
that nature may first, at a certain age, suddenly enlarge 
or contract herself. 

We have a variety of examples that the imagination 
appears not only to act upon the present, but on absence, 
distance, and futurity. Perhaps apparitions of the dying 
and the dead may be attributed to this kind of efiect. 
Be it granted that these facts, which are so numerous, 
are true, and including not only the apparitions of the 
dead, but of the living, who have appeared to distant 
friends; after collecting such anecdotes, and adding 
others on the subject of presage and prediction, many 
philosophical conjectures will thence arise, which may 
probably confirm my following proposition. 

The imagination, incited by the desire and languish¬ 
ing of love, or inflamed by passion, may act in distant 
places and times. The sick or d}dng person, for example, 
sighs after an absent friend who knows not of his 
sickness, or thinks of him at the time. The pining of 
the imagination penetrates, as I may say, walls, and 
appears in the form of the dying person, or gives signs 
of his presence similar to those which his actual presence 
gives. Is there any real corporeal appearances? Ho. 
The sick or dying person is languishing in his bed, and 
has never been a moment absent; therefore there is no 
actual appearance of him whose form has appeared. 
What, then, has produced this appearance ? What is it 
that has acted thus at a distance on another’s senses or 
imagination?—Imagination; but the imagination through 


EFFECTS OF IMAGINATION ON THE FORM. 137 

the focus of passion.—How?—It is inexplicable. But 
who can doubt such facts who does not mean to laugh 
at all historical facts ? 

Is there any improbability that there may be similar 
moments of mind when the imagination shall act ahke 
inexplicably on the unborn child ? That the inexplicable 
disgusts, I will grant; I feel it perfectly. But is it not 
the same in the foregoing examples, and in every example 
of the kind? Like as cripples first become so manj 
years after birth, which daily experience proves, may 
not, after the same inconceivable manner, the seeds of 
what is gigantic or dwarfish be the effects of the imagi¬ 
nation on the fruit, which does not make its appearance 
till years after the child is born ? 

Were it possible to persuade a woman to keep an 
accurate register of what happened, in aU the powerful 
moments of imagination during her state of pregnancy, 
she then might probably be able to foretell the chief 
incidents, philosophical, moral, intellectual, and physio¬ 
gnomical, which would happen to her child. Imagination, 
actuated by desire, love, or hatred, may, with more than 
lightning swiftness, kill or enliven, enlarge, diminish, 
or impregnate, the organized foetus with the germ of 
enlarging or diminishing wisdom or foUy, death or life, 
which shall first be unfolded at a certain time, and under 
certain circumstances. This hitherto unexplored, but 
sometimes decisive and revealed, creative and changing 
power of the soul, may be in its essence identically the 
same with what is called faith-working miracles, which 
latter may be developed and increased by external 
causes, wherever it exists, but cannot be communicated 
where it is not. A closer examination of the foregoing 
conjectures, which I wish not to be held for any thing 


138 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


more than conjectures, may perhaps lead to the pro- 
foundest secrets of physiognomy. 


CHAPTEK XXIX. 

Essay by a late Learned Man of Oldenburg, M. Sturtz, 
on Physiognomy, interspersed with short Remarks by 
the Author. 

“ Like Lavater, I am perfectly convinced of the truth 
of physiognomy, and of the all significance of each limb 
and feature. Certain it is that the mind may be read 
in the lineaments of the body, and its motion in its 
features and their shades. 

Cause and effect, connection and harmony, exist 
through all nature; therefore between the external and 
internal of man. Our form is influenced by our parents, 
by the earth on which we walk, the sun that warms us 
with his rays, the food that assimilates itseK with our 
substance, the incidents that determine the fortune of 
our lives. These all modify, repair, and chisel forth the 
body, and the marks of the tool are apparent both in 
body and in mind. Each arching, each sinuosity of the 
externals, adapts itself to the individuality of the 
internal. It is adherent and pliable, like wet drapery. 
Were the nose but a little altered, Caesar would not be 
the Caesar with whom we are acquainted. 

“ The soul being in motion, it shines through the body 
as the moon through the ghosts of Ossian, each passion 
throughout the human race has ever the same language.” 
From * east and to west, envy nowhere looks with the 

• Those passages which are not marked with inverted commas are 
the observations of M. Lavater on the different parts of M. Sturtz’s 
Essay. 



STURTZ ON PHYSIOGNOMY. 


139 


satisfied air of magnanimity, nor will discontent appear 
like patience. Wherever patience is, there is it expressed 
by the same signs, as likewise are anger, envy, and every 
other passion. 

" Philoctetes certainly expresses not the sensation of 
pain like a scourged slave. The angels of Eaphael must 
smile more nobly than the angels of Eembrandt; but 
joy and pain still have each their peculiar expression: 
they act according to pecuhar laws upon peculiar 
muscles and nerves, however various may be the shades 
of their expression; and the oftener the passion is 
repeated or set in motion, the more it becomes a pro¬ 
pensity, a favourite habit, the deeper will be the furrows 
it ploughs. 

'' But inclination, capacity, modes and gradations of ca¬ 
pacity, talents, and an ability for business, lie much more 
concealed, t A good observer will discover the wrathful, 
the voluptuous, the proud, the discontented, the malig¬ 
nant, the benevolent, and the compassionate with little 
difficulty; but the philosopher, the poet, the artist, and 
their various partitions of genius, he will be unable to 
determine with equal accuracy^ And it will be still 
more difficult to assign the feature or trait in which the 
token of each quality is seated, whether understanding, 
be in the eyebone, wit in the chin, and poetical genius 
in the mouth.” 

Yet I hope, I believe—nay, I know—that the pre¬ 
sent century will render this possible. The penetrating 
author of this essay would not only have found if 
possible, but would have performed it himself, had he 
only set apart a single day to compare and examine a 
weU-arranged collection of characters, either in nature 
or well-painted portraits. 


140 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


“Whenever we meet with a remarkable man, our 
attention is always excited, and we are more or less 
empirical physiognomists. We perceive in the aspect, 
the mien, the smile, the mechanism of the forehead, 
sometimes wit, at others penetration. We expect and 
presage, from the impulse of latent sensation, very deter¬ 
mined qualities from the form of each new acquaintance; 
and when this faculty of judging is improved by an 
intercourse with the world, we often suceed to admiration 
in our judgment on strangers. 

“ Can we call this feeling, internal unacquired 
sensation, which is inexplicable; or is it comparison, 
indication, conclusion from a character we have examined 
to another which we have not, and occasioned by some 
external resemblance ? reeling is the aegis of enthusiasts 
and fools, and, though it may often be conformable to 
truth, is still neither demonstration nor confirmation of 
truth; but induction is judgment founded on experience, 
and this way only will I study physiognomy. 

“With an air of friendship I meet many strangers, 
with cool politness I recede from others, though there is 
no expression of passion to attract or to disgust. On 
farther examination, I always found that I have seen in 
them some trait either of a worthy or a worthless person 
with whom I was before acquainted. 

“ A child, in my opinion, acts from like motives when 
he evades, or is pleased with, the caresses of strangers, 
except that he is actuated by more trifling signs; perhaps 
by the colour of the clothes, the tone of the voice, or 
often by some motion which he has observed in the 
parent, the nurse, or the acquaintance.” 

This cannot be denied to be often the case, and indeed 
much more often than is commonly supposed; yet I 


STURTZ ON PHYSIOGNOMY. 


141 


make no doukt of being able to prove that there are, 
in nature and art, a multitude of traits, especially of the 
extremes of passionate as well as dispassionate faculties, 
which of themselves, and without comparison with 
former experiments, are with certainty intelligible to 
the most unpractised observer. I believe it to be incor¬ 
porated in the nature of man, in the organization of our 
eyes and ears, that he should be actuated or repulsed by 
certain countenances as well as by certain tones. Let a 
child who has seen but a few men, view but the open jaws 
of a lion or a tiger, and the smile of a benevolent person, 
and his nature wiU infallibly shrink from the one, and 
meet the smile of benevolence with a smile; not from 
reason and comparison, but from the original feelings of 
nature. For the same reason we listen with pleasure to 
a delightful melody, and shudder at discordant shrieks. 
As little as there is of comparison or consideration on 
such an occasion, so is there equally little on the first of 
an extremely pleasing, or an extremely disgusting 
countenance. 

" Mere sensation, therefore, is not the cause, since I 
have good reason, when I meet a person who resembles 
Turenne, to expect sagacity, cool resolution, and ardent 
enterprise. If, in three men, I find one possessed of the 
eyes of Turenne and the same marks of prudence; 
another with his nose and high courage; the third with 
his mouth and activity; I then have ascertained the 
seat where each quality expresses itself, and am justified 
in expecting similar qualities wherever I meet similar 
features. 

"'Had we, for centuries past, examined the human 
form, arranged characteristic features, compared traits, 
and exemplified inflections, lines, and proportions, and 


142 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


had we added explanations to each, then would our 
Chinese alphabet of the race of man be complete, and 
we need but open it to find the interpretation of any 
countenance. Whenever I indulge the supposition that 
such an elementary work is not absolutely impossible, 
I expect more from it than even Lavater. I imagine 
we may obtain a language so rich and so determinate, 
that it shall be possible, from description only, to restore 
the living figure; and that an accurate description of 
the mind shall give the outline of the body, so that the 
physiognomist, studying some future Plutarch, shall 
regenerate great men, and ideal form shall, with facility, 
take birth from the given definition.” 

This is excellent; and, be the author in jest or ear¬ 
nest, this is what I entirely, without dreaming and most 
absolutely, expect from the following century; for which 
purpose, with God’s good pleasure, I will hereafter hazard 
some essays. 

“ With these ideal forms shall the chambers of future 
princes be hung, and he who comes to solicit employ¬ 
ment shall retire without murmuring, when it is proved 
to him that he is excluded by his nose.” 

Laugh or laugh not, friends or enemies of truth, this 
will, this must happen. 

By degrees, I imagine to myself a new and another 
world, where error and deceit shall be banished.” 

Banished they would be were physiognomy the 
universal religion, were all men accurate observers, and 
were not dissimulation obliged to recur to new arts, by 
Avhich physiognomy, at least for a time, may be rendered 
erroneous. 

We have to inquire whether we should therefore be 
happier ? ” 


STURTZ ON PHYSIOGNOMY. 


143 


We should certainly be happier, though the present 
contest between virtue and vice, siucerity and dissimu¬ 
lation, which so contributes to the development of the 
grand faculties of man, renders, as I may say, human 
virtue divine, exalting it to heaven. 

Truth is ever found in the medium : we will not 
hope too little from physiognomy, nor will we expect 
too much. Here torrents of objections break in upon 
me, some of which I am unable to answer. Do so many 
men in reality resemble each other ? Is not the re¬ 
semblance general; and, when particularly examined, 
does it not vanish, especially if the resembling persons 
be compared feature by feature ? Does it not happen 
that one feature is in direct contradiction to another; 
that a fearful nose is placed between eyes which betoken 
courage ? ” 

In the firm part:?, or those capable of sharp outlines, 
accidents excepted, I have never yet found contradictory 
features, but often have between the firm and the 
flexible, or the ground-form of the flexible and their 
apparent situation. By ground-form I mean to say that 
which is preserved after death, unless distorted by 
violent disease. 

“ It is by no means proved that resemblance of form 
universally denotes resemblance of mind. In families 
where there is most resemblance, there are often the 
greatest varieties of mind. I have known twins not to 
be distinguished from each other, between whose minds 
there was not the least similarity.” 

If this be literally true, I will renounce physiognomy, 
and whoever shall convince me of it, I will give him 
my copy of these fragments, and an hundred physiogno¬ 
mical drawings. Hor will I be my own judge : I lea^■e 


144 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


it to the worthy author of this remark to choose three 
arbiters. Let them examiue the fact accurately, and, 
if they confirm it, I will own my error. Shades, how¬ 
ever, of these twin brothers will first be necessary. In 
all the experiments I have made, I declare, upon my 
honour, I have never made any such remark. 

In what manner shall we be able to explain the in¬ 
numerable exceptions which almost overwhelm rule ? I 
wiU only produce some from my own observation. Dr. 
Johnson had the appearance of a porter; not the glance 
of the eye, not any trait of the mouth, speak the man of 
penetration or of science.” 

When a person of our author’s penetration and judg¬ 
ment thus affirms, I must hesitate, and say—He has 
observed this, I have not. But how does it happen that, 
in more than ten years’ observation, I have never met 
any such example ? I have seen many men, especially 
in the beginning of my physiognomical studies, whom I 
supposed to be men of sense, and who were not so ; but 
never, to the best of my knowledge, did I meet a wise 
man whom I supposed a fool. In the frontispiece is an 
engraving of Johnson. Can a countenance more tran¬ 
quilly fine be imagined, one that more possesses the 
sensibility of understanding, planning, scrutinizing ? In 
the eyebrows only, and their horizontal position, how 
great is the expression of profound, exquisite, pene¬ 
trating understanding ? 

'^The countenance of Hume was that of a common 
man.” 

So says common report. I have no answer but that 
I suspect the aspect, or flexible features, on which most 
observers found their physiognomical judgment, have, 
as I may say, effaced the physiognomy of the bones; as, 


STURTZ ON PHYSIOGNOMY. 


145 


for example, the outline and arching of the forehead, to 
which scarcely one in a hundred direct their attention. 

'' Churchill had the look of a drover; Goldsmith of a 
simpleton; and the cold eyes of Strange do not betray 
the artist.” 

The greatest artists have often the coldest eyes. The 
man of genius and the artist are two persons. Phlegm 
is the inheritance of the mere artist. 

“ Who would say that the apparent ardour of Wille 
speaks the man who passed his life in drawing parallel 
lines 

Ardour and phlegm are not incompatiblethe most 
ardent men are the coolest. \ Scarcely any observation 
has been so much verified as this : it appears contradic¬ 
tory, but it is not. Ardent, quickly determining, 
resolute, laborious, and boldly enterprising men, the 
moment of ardour excepted, have the coolest of minds.* 
The style and countenance of Wille, if the profile portrait 
of him in my possession be a likeness, have this character 
in perfection. 

“ It appears to me that Boucher, the painter of the 
graces, has the aspect of an executioner.” 

Truly so. Such was the portrait I received. But 
then, my good M. Sturtz, let us understand what is 
meant by these painters of the graces. I find as little 
in his works as in his countenance. Hone of the paint¬ 
ings of Boucher were at all to my taste. I could not 
contemplate one of them with pleasure, and his counte¬ 
nance had the same effect. I can now comprehend, said 
I, on the first sight of his portrait, why I have never 
been pleased with the works of Boucher. 

“ I once happened to see a criminal condemned to the 
wheel, who with Satanic wickedness had murdered his 

L • 


146 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


benefactor, and wbo yet bad the benevolent and open 
countenance of an angel of Guido. It is not impossible 
to discover the bead of a Eegulus among guilty crimi¬ 
nals, or of a vestal in tbe bouse of correction.” 

I can confirm tbis from experience. Far be contra¬ 
diction from me on tbis subject. But sucb vicious 
persons, however hateful with respect to tbe appearance 
and effect of their actions, or even to their internal 
motives, were not originally wicked. Where is the 
pure, tbe noble, finely-formed, easily-irritated man, with 
angelic sensibibty, who has not his devilish moments, 
in which, were not opportunity happily wanting, he 
might, in one hour, be guilty of some two or three vices 
which would exhibit him, apparently at least, as the 
most detestable of men ? Yet may he be a thousand 
times better and nobler than numerous men of subaltern 
minds, held to be good, who never were capable 'Of com¬ 
mitting acts so wicked, for the commission of which 
they so loudly condemn him, and, for the good of society, 
are bound to condemn. 

*^Lavater will answer, 'Show me these men, and I 
will comment upon them, as I have done upon Socrates. 
Some small, often unremarked trait, will probably 
explain what appears to you so enigmatical.* But will 
not something creep into the commentary which never 
was in the text ? ” 

Though this may be, yet it ought not to be the case. 
I will also grant that a man with a good countenance 
may act like a rogue; but, in the first place, at such a 
moment his countenance will not appear good; and, in 
the next, he will infinitely oftener act like a man of 
worth. 

" Have we any right, from a known character, to draw 


STURTZ ON PHYSIOGNOMY. 


147 


conclusions concerning one unknown ? or, is it easy to 
discover what that being is, who wanders in darkness, 
and dwells in the house of contradiction; who is one 
creature to-day, and to-morrow the reverse ? ” 

How true, how important is this 1 How necessary a 
beacon to warn and terrify the physiognomist! 

‘‘What judgment could we form of Augustus., J£ we 
were only acquainted with his conduct to Cinna ? or of 
Cicero, if we knew him only from his consulate ? How 
gigantic rises Elizabeth among queens f yet how little, 
how mean was the superannuated coquette James II., a 
bold general and a cowardly king! Monk, the revenger 
of monarchs, the slave of his wife! Algernon Sydney 
and Eussell, patriots worthy of Eome, sold to France 1 
Bacon, the father of wisdom, a bribed judge 1 Such dis¬ 
coveries make us shudder at the aspect of man, and 
shake off friends and intimates like coals of fire from 
the hand. When such cameleon ndnds can be one 
moment great, at another contemptible, and alter their 
form, what can that form say ? ” 

Their form shows what they may, what they ought to 
be, and their aspect in the moment of action what they 
are. Their countenance shows their power, and their 
aspect the application of their power. The expression ^ 
of their littleness may probably be like the spots of the 
sun, invisible to the naked eye. 

“ Does not that medium through which we are accus¬ 
tomed to look tinge our judgment ? Smellfungus views 
all objects through a blackened glass; another through 
a prism. Many contemplate virtue through a diminish¬ 
ing, and vice through a magnifying, medium.” 

How excellently expressed! 

“A book written by Swift on physiognomy would 


148 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


certainly have been very different from that of Lavater. 
National physiognomy is still a large uncultivated field. 
The families of the fair classes of the race of Adam, from 
the Esquimaux to the Greeks in Europe, and in Ger¬ 
many alone what varieties are there which can escape 
no observer ? Heads bearing the stamp of the form of 
government, which ever will influence education; repub¬ 
lican haughtiness, proud of its laws; the pride of the 
slave, who feels pride because he has the power of 
inflicting the scourges he has received; Greeks, under 
Pericles and under Hassan Pacha; Eomans in a state 
of freedom, governed by emperors and governed by 
popes; Englishmen under Henry the Eighth and Crom¬ 
well. How have I been struck by the portraits of 
Hampden, Pym, and Vane! All produce varieties of 
beauty, according to the different nations.” 

It is impossible for me to express how much I think 
myself indebted to the author of this spirited and 
energetic essay. How worthy an act was it in him, 
whom I had unintentionally offended, concerning whom 
I had published a judgment far from sufiSciently noble, 
to send me this essay, with liberty to make what use of 
it I pleased! In such a manner, in such a spirit, may 
informations, corrections, or doubts be ever conveyed to 
me! Shall I need to apologize for having inserted it ? 
or rather, will not most of my readers say. Give us more 
such. 



QUOTATIONS FHOM HUART. 


149 


CHAPTEE XXX. 

Quotations from Huartf with Remarks thereon. 

1 . 

" Many, who are really wise, often appear not to be 
80 ; and others who appear to he wise, are the reverse. 
Some, again, neither are nor appear to he wise, while 
others have the possession and appearance of wisdom.” 

A touchstone for many countenances. 

2 . 

“The son is often brought in debtor to the great 
understanding of the father.” 

3 . 

“’Wisdom in infancy denotes folly in manhood.” 

4 . 

“Xo aid can make those briag forth who are not 
pregnant.” 

We must not expect fruit where seed has not been 
sown. How advantageous, how important, would physio¬ 
gnomy become, were it, by beiag acquainted with every 
sign of intellectual and moral pregnancy, enabled to 
render aid to all the pregnant! 

5 . 

“ The external form of the head is what it ought to 
be, when it resembles a hollow globe slightly compressed 
at the sides, with a small protuberance at the forehead 
and back of the head. A very flat forehead, or a sudden 
descent at the back of the head, are no good tokens of 
imderstanding.” 

The profile of such a head, notwithstanding the com- 


150 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


pressure, would be more circular than oval. Tlie profile 
of a good bead ought to form a circle only when 
combined with the nose; therefore, without the nose it 
approaches much more to the oval than the circular. 
“A very flat forehead (says our author) is no good sign 
of understanding." True, if the flatness resembles that of 
the ox; but I have seen perfectly flat foreheads—^let me 
be rightly imderstood, I mean flat only between and 
above the eyebrows—^in men of great wisdom. Much, 
indeed, depends upon the position and curves of the 
outlines of the forehead. 


6 . 

‘"Man has more brain than any animal. Were the 
quantity of the brain in two of the largest oxen compared 
to the quantity found in the smallest man, it would 
prove to be less.” 

7 . 

“Large oranges have thick skins and little juice. 
Heads of much bone and flesh have little brain. Large 
bones, with abundance of flesh and fat, are impediments 
to the mind.” 


8 . 

“ The heads of wise persons are very weak, and sus¬ 
ceptible of the most minute impressions.” 

Often, not always. And how wise ? Wise to plan, 
but not to execute. Active wisdom must have harder 
bones. One of the greatest of this earth’s wonders is a 
man in whom the two qualities are united, who has 
sensibility even to painful excess, and colossal courage 
to resist the impetuous torrent, the whirlpool, by which 
he shall be assailed. Such characters possess sensibility 


QUOTATIONS FKOM HUART. 


151 


from the tenderness of bodily feeling; and strength not 
not so much in the bones as in the nerves. 

9 . 

" A thick belly,” says Galen, “ a thick understanding.” 

With equal truth or falsehood, I may add, a thin 
belly a thin understanding. Eemarks so general, which 
would prove so many able and wise men to be fools, I 
value but little. A thick belly certainly is no positive 
token of understanding, it is rather positive for sen¬ 
suality, which is detrimental to the understanding; but 
abstractedly, and unconnected with other indubitable 
marks, I cannot receive this as a general proposition. 

10 . 

Aristotle holds the smallest heads to be the wisest.” 

But this, with all reverence for so great a man, I 
think was spoken without reflection. Let a small head 
be imagined on a great body, or a great head on a small 
body, each of which may be found in consequence of 
accidents that excite or retard growth; and it will be 
perceived that, without some more definite distinction, 
neither the large nor the small head is, in itself, wise or 
foolish. It is true that large heads with short trian¬ 
gular foreheads are foolish, as are those large heads 
which are fat, and incumbered with flesh; but small, 
particularly round heads, with the like incumbrance, are 
intolerably foolish, and generally possess that which 
renders their intolerable folly more intolerable, a pretem 
sion to wisdom. 

11 . 

'' It is a good sign when a small person has a head 
somewhat large, and a large person has the head some¬ 
what small.” 


152 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Provided this extend no farther than somewhat, it 
may he supportable; but it is certainly for the best 
when the head is in such proportion to the body, that 
it is not remarkatle either for its largeness or smallness. 

12 . 

“ Memory and imagination resemble the understand¬ 
ing, as a monkey does a man.” 

13 . 

^‘Whether the flesh be hard or tender, it is of no 
consequence to the genius, if the brain do not partake of 
the same quality; for experience tells us that the latter 
is very often of a different temperament to the other 
parts of the body. But when both the brain and the 
flesh are tender, they betoken ill to the understanding, 
and equally ill to the imagination.” 

14 . 

Phlegm and blood are the fluids which render the 
flesh tender; and those being moist, according to Galen, 
render men simple and stupid. The fluids, on the con¬ 
trary, which harden the flesh, are choler and melancholy, 
(or bile,) and these generate wisdom and understanding. 
It is, therefore, a much worse sign to have tender flesh 
than rough; and tender signifies a bad memory, with 
weakness of understanding and imagination.” 

It occurs to me that there is an intelligent tenderness 
of flesh, which announces much more understanding 
than do the opposite qualities of rough and hard. I can 
no more class coriaceous flesh as the characteristic of 
understanding, than I can tenderness of flesh, without 
being more accurately defined, as the characteristic of 
folly. It will be proper to distinguish between tender 


QUOTATIONS FROM HUART. 


153 


and porous or spongy, and between rougb and firm 
without hardness. 


15 . 

“We must examine the hair, if we wish to discover 
whether the quality of the brain corresponds with the 
flesh. If the hair be black, strong, rough, and thick, it 
betokens strength of imagination and understanding.” 

I am of a different opinion. Let not this be expressed 
in such general terms. At this moment I recollect a 
very weak man, by nature weak, with exactly such hair. 
This roughness {sprodigheit) is a fatal word, which, taken 
in what sense it will, never signifles any good. 

“But if the hair be tender and weak, it denotes 
. nothing more than goodness of memory.” 

Once more too little; it denotes a fine organization, 
which receives the impression of images at least as 
strongly as the signs of images. 

16 . 

“ When the hair is of the first quality, and we would 
farther distinguish whether it betokens goodness of 
understanding or imagination, we must pay attention 
to the laugh. Laughter betrays the quality of the ima¬ 
gination.” 

I may venture to add, of the understanding, of the 
heart, of power, love, hatred, pride, humility, truth, and 
falsehood. Would I had artists who would watch for 
and design the outlines of laughter ! The physiognomy 
of laughter would be the best of elementary books for 
the knowledge of man. If the laugh be good, so is the 
person. It is said of Christ that he never laughed. I 
believe it; but, had he never smiled, he would not have 


154 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


been human. The smile of Christ must have contained 
the precise outline of brotherly love. 

17 . 

Heraclitus says, A dry eye, a wise mind.” 

18 . 

We shall discover few men of great understanding 
who write a fine hand.” 

It might have been said, with more accuracy, a school¬ 
master’s hand. 


CHAPTER XXXI. 

Eemarks on an Essay on Physiognomy hy Professor 
Lichteriberg. 

Much intelligence, much ornament, and a mild dif¬ 
fusive eloquence, are blended in this essay. It is the 
work of a learned, penetrating, and, in many respects, 
highly meritorious person, who appears to possess much 
knowledge of men, and a large portion of the prompt 
spirit of observation. This essay merits the utmost 
attention and investigation. It is so interesting, so com¬ 
prehensive, affords so much opportunity of remark for 
the physiognomist, and of remarks which I have yet to 
make, that I cannot avoid citing the most important 
passages, and submitting them to an unprejudiced and 
accurate examination. 

It is far from my intention or wish to compare myself 
with the excellent author, to make any pretensions to 
his fanciful and brilliant wit, and still less to his learn¬ 
ing and penetration. It is perhaps my wish, though I 



REMAKES ON LICHTENEERG. 


155 


dare not hope, to meet and answer him with the same 
elegance as his polished mind and fine taste seem to 
demand. I am sensible of. those wants which are 
peculiar to myself, and which must remain mine even 
when I have truth on my side. Yet, worthy sir, he 
assured that I shall never he unjust, and that, even 
where I cannot assent to your observations, I shall never 
forget the esteem I owe your talents, learning, and 
merits. 

We will now, in supposition, sit down in friendship 
with your essay before us, and with that benevolence 
which‘is most becoming men, philosophers in particu¬ 
lar, explain our mutual sentiments concerning nature 
and trutli. 


ON PHYSIOGNOMY. 

Certaiuly,” says our author, “ the freedom of thought, 
and the very recesses of the heart, were never more 
severely scrutinized than in the present age.” 

I cannot help thinking that, at the very beginning;^ 
an improper point of view is taken, which may probably 
lead the author and reader astray through the whole 
essay. Tor my own part, at least, I know of no attacks 
on the freedom of thought, or the secret recesses of the 
heart It is universally known that my labours have 
been less directed to this than to the knowledge of pre¬ 
dominant character, capacities, talents, powers, inclina¬ 
tions, activity, genius, religion, sensibility, irritability, 
and elasticity of men in general, and not to the discovery 
of actual and present thought. As far as I am con 
cerned, the soul may and can, in our witty author’s own 
words, brood as secretly over its treasures as it might 
have done centuries ago; may a-s tranquilly smile at the 


15G 


LAVATEH’S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


progress of all Babylonian works, at all proud assailants 
of heaven, convinced that, long before the completion of 
their work, there shall be a confusion of tongues, and 
the master and the labourers shall be scattered.” 

I should enjoy the laugh as much as any one, at the 
arrogance of that physiognomist who should pretend to 
read in the countenance the most secret thoughts and 
motions of the soul at any given moment, although 
there are moments in which they are legible to the most 
unpractised physiognomist. 

I am also of opinion that the secrets of the heart 
belong to pathognomy, to which I direct my attention 
much less than to physiognomy; of which the author 
says, more wittily than truly, it is as unnecessary to 
write as on the art of love.” 

The author is very right in reminding us, " that we 
ought to seek physiognomical instruction from known 
characters with great caution, and even diffidence.” 

Our author then says,Whether physiognomy, in its 
utmost perfection, would promote philanthropy, is at 
least questionable.” 

I confidently answer unquestionable, and I hope 
immediately to induce the reasonable and philanthropic 
author to say the same. Physiognomy, in its utmost 
perfection, must mean the knowledge of men in its 
utmost perfection. And shall not this promote the love 
of man ? or, in other words, shall it not discover innu¬ 
merable perfections which the half physiognomist, or 
the unphysiognomist, are unable to discover? Noble 
and penetrating friend of man, while writing this you 
had forgotten what you had so truly, so beautifully said, 

“ that the most hateful deformity might, by the aid of 
virtue, acquire irresistible charms and to whom more 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 157 

irresistible, more legible, than to the perfect pliysio- 
gnomist? Irresistible charms certainly promote not 
hatred, but love. From my own experience, I can 
sincerely declare that the improvement of my physio¬ 
gnomical knowledge has extended and increased the 
power of love in my heart. 

Though this knowledge may sometimes be the author 
of afidiction, still it is ever true that the affliction occa¬ 
sioned by certain countenances, endears, sanctifies, and 
renders enchanting whatever is noble and lovely, which 
often glows in the human countenance like embers 
among ashes. My attention to the discovery of this 
secret goodness is increased, and the object of my labours 
is its increase and improvement; and how do esteem 
and love extend themselves wherever I perceive a pre¬ 
ponderance of goodness! On a more accurate observation, 
the very countenances that afflict me, and which for 
some moments incense me against humanity, do but 
increase a tolerant and benevolent spirit; for I then 
discern the load and the nature of that sensuality against 
which they have to combat. 

AU truth, all knowledge of what is, of what acts 
upon us, and on which we act, promotes general and 
individual happiness. Whoever denies this is incapable 
of investigation. The more perfect this knowledge is, 
the greater are its advantages. Whatever profits, 
whatever promotes happiness, promotes philanthropy. 
Where are happy men to be found without philanthropy ? 
Are such beings possible? Were happiness and philan¬ 
thropy to be destroyed or lessened by any perfect 
science, truth would war with truth, and eternal wisdom 
with itself. 

He who can seriously maintain that a perfect science 


158 


LAVATER S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


may be detrimental to human society, or may not promote 
philanthropy, (without which happiness among men 
cannot be supposed,) is certainly not a man in whose 
company our author would wish to philosophize, as he 
certainly will, with me, assume it as an axiom that 
" the nearer truth the nearer happiness.” The more our 
knowledge and judgment resemble the knowledge and 
judgment of the Deity, the more will our philanthropy 
resemble the philanthropy of the Deity. He who knows 
how man is formed, who remembers that he is but dust, 
is the most tolerant friend of man, 

I believe angels to be better physiognomists and more 
philanthropic than men, though they may perceive in 
us a thousand failings and imperfections which may 
escape the most penetrating eye of man. God, having 
the most knowledge of spirit, is the most tolerant of 
spirits. And who was more tolerant, more affectionate, 
more lenient, more merciful than thou, who needest not 
that any should testify of man, for thou hnewest what was 
in man ? 

"'It is certain that the industrious, the insinuating 
and active blockheads in physiognomy, may do much' 
injury to society.” 

Be assured, my worthy sir, it is my earnest desire, my 
known endeavour, to deter such blockheads from study¬ 
ing physiognomy. This evil can be prevented only by 
accurate observation. True it is that every science may 
become dangerous when studied by the superficial and 
the foolish, and the very reverse when studied by the 
accurate and the wise. According to your own princi¬ 
ples, therefore, we must agree in this, that none but the 
superficial, the blockhead, the fanatical enemy of know¬ 
ledge and learning in general can wish to prevent " all 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 


159 


investigation of physiognomical principlesnone but 
such a person can oppose physiognomical labours; 
none but a blockhead will suppose it unAvorthy and 
impracticable in these degenerate days to awaken sensi¬ 
bility and the spirit of observation, or to improve the 
arts and the knowledge of men.” To grant aU this as 
you, sir, do, and yet to speak with bitterness against 
physiognomy and physiognomists, I call sowing tares 
among the good seed. 

Our author next proceeds to distinguish between 
physiognomy and pathognomy. “Physiognomy (he 
defines to be) a capability of discovering the qualities of 
the mind and heart from the form and qualities of the 
external parts of the body, especially the countenance, 
exclusive of all transitory signs of the motion of the 
mind; and pathognomy, the whole semeiotica of the 
passions, or the knowledge of the natural signs of the 
motions of the mind, according to all their gradations 
and combinations.” 

I entirely agree with tliis distinction, and likewise 
subscribe to these given definitions. 

It is in the next place asked. Is there physiognomy ? 
is there pathognomy ? To the latter the author justly 
replies, “ This no man ever yet denied; for what would 
a1], theatrioal representations be without it ? The 
language of all ages and nations abounds with pathogno- 
mical remarks, and with which they are inseparably 
interwoven.” 

However, after reading the work several times, I can¬ 
not discover whether the author does or does not grant 
the reality of physiognomy. In one passage the author 
very excellently says, “Ho one will deny that in a world 
where all thing are cause and effect, and where miracles 


1 GD lavater's physiognomy. 

are not to be found, each part is a mirror of the whole. 
We are often able to conclude from what is near to what 
is distant, from what is visible to what is invisible, from 
the present to the past and the future. Thus the history 
of the earth is written, in nature’s characters, in the form 
of each tract of country, of its sands, hills, and rocks. 
Thus each shell of the seashore proclaims the once 
included mind, connected, like the mind of man, with 
this shell Thus also might the internal of man be 
expressed by the external on the countenance, concern¬ 
ing which we particularly mean to speak. Signs and 
traces of thought, inclination, and capacity, must be 
perceptible. How visible are the tokens impressed upon 
the body by trade and climate I yet what are trade and 
climate compared to the ever-active soul, creative in 
every fibre, of whose absolute legibility from all and to 
all no one doubts 

The writer of the above excellent passage is the last 
person from whom I should have expected the follow¬ 
ing :—“ What! the physiognomist will exclaim, can the 
soul of Hewton reside in the head of a Negro, or an 
angelic mind in a fiendlike form?” 

As little could I have expected this passage :— 
Talents, and the endowments of the mind in general, 
are not expressed by any signs in the firm parts of the 
head.” 

I have never in my life met with any thing more con¬ 
tradictory to nature, and to each other, than the foregoing 
and the following paragraphs:— 

If a pea were thrown into the Mediterranean, an eye 
more piercing than. ours, though infinitely less pene¬ 
trating than the eye of Him who sees all things, might 
perceive the effects produced on the coast of China.” 
These are our author’s ve^ words* 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 


161 


And shall the whole living powers of tlie soul, 
“ creative in every fibre,” have no determinate influence 
on the firm parts, those boundaries of its activity, which 
first were yielding, and, acted upon, impressed by every 
muscle; which resemble each other in no human body, 
which are so various as characters and talents, and are 
as certainly different as the most flexible parts of man ? 
Shall the whole powers of the soul, I say, have no de¬ 
terminate influence on these, or not by these be defined ? 

In order to avoid the future imputation of indulging 
the shallow stream of youthful declamation, instead of 
producing facts and principles deduced from experience, 
let us oppose experience to declamation, and facts to 
subtleties. But first a word, that we may perfectly re¬ 
move a degree of ambiguity which I should not have 
expected from the accuracy of a mathematician. 

“ Why not,” says our author—“ why not the soul of 
Newton in the head of a Negro ? Why not an angel 
mind in a fiend-like form ? Who, reptile, empowered 
thee to judge of the works of God ? ” 

Let us represent things in their proper light. We do 
not speak here of what God can do, but of what is to be 
expected from the knowledge we have of his works. 
We ask what the Author of order actually does, and not 
whether the soul of Newton can exist in the body of a 
Negro, or an angelic soul in a fiendlike form The 
physiognomical question is. Can an angel’s soul act the 
same in a fiendlike body as in the angelic body ? or, in 
other words. Could the mind of Newton have invented 
the theory of light, residing in the head of a Negro, 
thus and thus defined ? Such is the question. 

WiU you, sir, who are the friend of truth—will you 
answer. It might? You who have previously said of 

M 


1G2 


la^'ater’s physiognomy. 


the world, “All things in it are cause and effect, and 
miracles are not to he found ?” 

“ I should indeed be a reptile judging the works of ‘ 
God, did I maintain its impossibility by miracle; but 
the question at present is not concerning miracles; it is 
concerning natural cause and effect.” 

After having thus stated the argument, permit me, sir, 
to decide it by quoting your own words: “ Judas 
scarcely could be that dirty, deformed mendicant painted 
by Holbein. Ho h 3 q)Ocrite who associates with the 
good, betrays with a kiss, and afterwards hangs himself, 
has the look of Holbein’s Judas. My experience leads 
me to suppose Judas must have been distinguished by 
an insinuating countenance and an ever-ready smile.” 

How true! how excellent! Yet what if I were to 
exclaim, “ Who empowered thee, reptile, to judge of the 
works of God ? ” What if I were to retort the following 
just remark, “ Tell me first, why a virtuous mind is so 
often doomed to exist in an infirm body? Might not 
also, were it God’s good pleasure, a virtuous man have a 
countenance like the beggarly Jew of Holbein, or any 
other that can be imagined ?” 

Can this, however, be called wise or manly reasoning ? 
How wide is the difference between suffering and dis¬ 
gusting virtue! or, is it logical to deduce that, because 
virtue may suffer, virtue may be disgustful? Is not 
suffering essential to virtue ! To ask why virtue must 
suffer, is equivalent to asking why God has decreed that 
virtue should exist. Is it alike incongruous to admit 
that virtue suffers, and that virtue looks like vice? 
Virtue void of conflict, of suffering, or of self-denial, is 
not virtue accurately considered; therefore it is folly to 
ask, why must the virtuous suffer ? It is in the nature 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 


163 


of tilings; but it is not in the nature of tilings, not in the 
relation of cause and effect, that virtue should look like 
vice, or wisdom like foolishness. How, good sir, could 
you forget what you have so expressively said, There 
is no durable beauty without virtue; and the most hate¬ 
ful deformity may, by the aid of virtue, acquire the 
most irresistible charms? The author is acquainted 
with several women whose example might inspire the 
most ugly with hope.” 

What may be the infirmities of the virtuous we do 
not inquire, nor whether a man of genius may become a 
fool; we ask whether virtue, while existing, can look 
like present vice, or actual folly like actual wisdom. ? 
You, sir, who are so profound an inquirer into the 
nature of man, will certainly never grant (who, indeed, 
will?) that the soul of the beloved disciple of Christ 
could, without a miracle, reside in the dirty, deformed 
mendicant, the beggarly Jew of Holbein, and act as freely 
in that as in any other body. Will you, sir, continue to 
rank yourself, in your philosophical researches, with 
those who, having maintained such senseless proposi¬ 
tions, rid themselves of all difficulties by asking. “ Who 
empowered thee, reptile, to judge of the works of God ? ” 

Let us proceed to examine a few more passages. 

“Our senses acquaint us only with the superficies, 
from which all deductions are made. This is not very 
favourable to physiognomy, for which something more 
definite is requisite, since this reading of the superficies 
is the source of all our errors, and frequently of our 
ignorance.” 

So it is with us in nature: we absolutely can read 
nothing more than the superficies. In a world devoid 
of miracles, the external ever must have a relation to 


164 


LAVATER’s PHYSIOGNOMir. 


the internal; and, could we prove all reading of the 
superficies to be false, what should we effect but the 
destruction of all human knowledge ? All our inquiries 
produce only new superficies; all our truth must be the 
truth of the superficies. It is not the reading of the 
superficies that is the source of all our error; for, if so, 
we should have no truth; but the not reading, or, which 
is the same in effect, the not rightly reading. 

If “ a pea thrown into the Mediterranean Sea would 
effect a change in the superficies which should extend 
to the coast of China,” any error that we might commit 
in our conclusions concerning the action of this pea, 
would not be because we read only the superficies, but 
because we cannot read the superficies. 

“That we can only read the superficies is not very 
favourable to physiognomy, for which something more 
definite is requisite.” Something more definite we have 
endeavoured to give, and wish to hear the objections 
of acute inquirers. But let facts be opposed to facts. 
Does not our author, by the expression “since the internal 
is impressed upon the external,” seem to grant the 
possibility of this impression ? And if so, does not the 
superficies become the index of the internal ? Does he 
not thereby grant the physiognomy of the firm parts ? 

He proceeds to ask, “If the internal be impressed upon 
the external, is the impression to be discovered by the 
eyes of men ? ” Dare I trust my eyes that I have read 
such a passage in the writiugs of a philosopher ? 

We certainly see what we see. Be the object there or 
be it not, the question ever must be. Do we or do we not 
see? That we do see, and that the author, wnenever 
he xjleases, sees also, his essay is a proof, as are his other 
works. Be this as it may, I know not what would 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 


165 


become of all our pbilosopbers and philosophy, were we, 
at every new discovery of things, or the relations of things,' 
to ask. Was this thing placed there to be discovered? 
With what degree of ridicule would our witty author 
treat the man who should endeavour to render astronomy 
contemptible by asking, ‘^Though the wisdom of God is 
manifest in the stars, were the stars placed there to be 
discovered ? 

“ Must not signs and effects which we do not seek, 
conceal and render those erroneous of which we are in 
search ? ” 

The signs we seek are manifest, and may be known : 
they are the terminations of causes, therefore effects, 
therefore physiognomical expessions. The philosopher is 
an observer, an observer of that which is sought or not 
sought. He sees and must see that which presents 
itself to his eyes; and that which presents itself is the 
symbol of something that does not present itself. What 
he sees can only mislead him when he does not see 
rightly. If the conclusion be true, “that signs and 
effects which we do not seek, must conceal and render 
erroneous those of which we are in search,'’ then ought 
we to seek no signs and effects, and thus all sciences 
vanish. 

I have reason to hope that a person of so much learn¬ 
ing as is our author, would not sacrifice all human 
sciences for the sole purpose of heaping physiognomy on 
a pile. I grant the possibility and facility of error is 
there; and this should teach us circumspection, should 
teach us to see the thing that is, without the addition 
of any thing that is not. But to wish, by any pretence, 
to divert us from seeing and observing, and to render 
inquiry contemptible, whether with rude or refined vat. 


166 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


would be tbe most ridiculous of all fanaticism. Sucli 
ridicule, in the mouth of a professed enemy of false 
philosophers, would be as vapid as false. I am indeed 
persuaded that my antagonist is not serious, and in 
earnest. 

“ Were the growth of the body (says the author) in 
the most pure of atmospheres, and modified only by the 
emotions of the mind, undisturbed by any external 
power, the ruling passion and the prevailing talent, I 
allow, might produce, according to their different gra¬ 
dations, different forms of countenance, like as different 
salts crystallize in different forms, when obstructed by 
no impediment. But is the body infiuenced by the 
mind alone, or is it not rather exposed to all the 
impulses of various contradictory powers, the laws of 
which it is obliged to obey ? Thus each mineral, in its 
purest state, has its peculiar form; but the anomalies 
which its combination with others occasions, and the 
accidents to which it is subjected, often cause the most 
experienced to err when they would distinguish it by 
its form.” 

How strange is this simile 1 Salts and minerals 
compared to an organized body, internally animate! A 
grain of salt, which the least particle of water will 
instantaneously melt, to the human skull, which has 
defied misfortune and millions of external impressions 
for centuries! Dost thou not blush. Philosophy ? Hot 
to confine ourselves to the organization or the skulls of 
men and other animals, do we find that even plants, 
wliich have not the internal resistance, the elasticity of 
man, and which are exposed to millions of counteracting 
impressions from light, air, and other bodies, ever change 
their form in consequence of such causes ? Which of 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 


167 


them is ever mistaken for another by tho botanist? 
The most violent accidents scarcely could effect such a 
change, so long as they should preserve their organiza¬ 
tion. 

'' Thus is the body mutually acted upon by the mind 
and external causes, and manifests not only our inclina¬ 
tions and capacities, but also the effects of misfortune, 
climate, diseases, food, and thousands of inconveniences 
to which we are subjected, not always in consequence of 
our vice, but often by accidents, and sometimes by our 
virtues.” 

Nobody can or will attempt to deny this. But is the 
foregoing question hereby answered ? We are to attend 
to that. Does not our essayist himself say, “ The body is 
acted upon by the mind and external causes ? ” There¬ 
fore not by external causes alone. May it not equally 
be affected by the internal energy or inactivity of the 
mind ? What are we contending for ? Has it not (if in¬ 
deed the author be in earnest) the appearance of sophistry 
to, oppose external to internal effects, and yet own 
the body is acted upon by both? And will you, sir, 
acute and wise as you are, maintain that misfortune can 
change a wise, a round, and an arched, into a cylindrical 
forehead; one that is lengthened into one that is square; 
or the projecting into the short retreating chin ? Who 
can seriously believe and afiB.rm that Charles XII., 
Henry IV., and Charles V, men who were undoubtedly 
subject to misfortunes if ever men were, thereby acquired 
another form of countenance, (we speak of the firm parts, 
not of scars,) and which forms denoted a different charac¬ 
ter to what each possessed previous to such misfortunes ? 
Who will maintain that the noses of Charles XII. or 
Henry IV, denoting power of mind previous to their 


108 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


reverse of fortune, the one at Pultowa, the other by the 
' hand of Eavaillac, suffered any change, and were debased 
to the insignificant pointed nose of a girl ? Nature acts 
from within upon the bones ; accident and suffering act 
on the nerves, muscles, and skin. If any accident 
attack the bones, who is so blind as not to remark such 
physical violence ? The signs of misfortune are either 
strong or feeble : when they are feeble, they are effaced 
by the superior strength and power of nature; when 
strong, they are too visible to deceive, and by their 
strength and visibility warn the physiognomist not to 
suppose them the features of nature. By the physiogno¬ 
mist I mean the unprejudiced observer, who alone is the 
real physiognomist, and has the right to decide; not tlie 
man of subtlety, who is wilfully blind to experience. 

Are the defects which I remark in an image of wax 
always the defects of the artist, or are they not the 
consequences of unskilful handling, the sun’s heat, or 
the warmth of the room ? ” 

Nothing, dear friend of truth, is more easy to observe, 
in an image of wax, than the original hand of the master, 
although it should, by improper handling, accidental 
pressure, or melting, be injured. This example, sir, 
militates against yourself. If the hand of the master be 
visible in an image of wax, where it is so easily defaced, 
how much more perceptible must accident be in an 
organized body, so individually permanent ? Instead 
of an image of wax, the simile, in my opinion, would be 
improved were we to substitute a statue; and in this 
every connoisseur can distinguish what has been broken, 
chopped, or filed off, as well as what has been added by 
a later hand. And why should not this be known in 
man? Why should not the original form of man be 


KEiTARKS ON LTCHTENBERG. 


169 


more distinguishable, in despite of accident, than the 
beauty and workmanship of an excellent statue which 
has been defaced ? 

“ Does the mind, like an elastic fluid, always assume 
the form of the body ? And if a flat nose were the sign 
of envy, must a man, whose nose by accident should be 
flattened, consequently become envious ? ” 

The inquirer wiU gain but little, be this question 
answered in the negative or affirmative. What is gained 
were we to answer, “Yes; the soul is an elastic fluid, 
which always takes the form of the body?” Would it 
thence follow that the flattened nose has lost so much 
of its elasticity as would be necessary to propel the 
nose ? or where would be the advantage should we reply, 
“ No; all such comparisons are insignificant except to 
elucidate certain cases; we must appeal only to facts ? ” 

But what would be answered to a less subtle and 
more simple question. Is there no example of the mind 
being injured by the maiming of the body ? Has not a 
fractured skull, by compressing the brain, injured the 
understanding? Does not castration render the male 
half female ?—But to answer wit with reason, says a 
witty writer, is like endeavouring to hold an eel by the 
tail. 

We wholly subscribe to the affirmation, that “ it is 
absurd to suppose the most beautiful mind is to be found 
in the most beautiful body, and the most deformed mind 
in the most deformed body.” 

We have already explained ourselves so amply on 
tills subject, that being supposed to hold a contrary 
opinion appears incomprehensible. We only say there 
is a proportion and beauty of body which is more 
capable of superior virtue, sensibility, and action, than 


170 


LAVATER S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


the disproportionate. We say with the author, “ Virtue 
beautifies, vice deforms.” We must cordially grant that 
honesty may 'be found in the most ugly, and vice in 
men of the most beautiful forms. 

We cannot, however, help differing from him concern¬ 
ing the following assertion: Our languages are ex¬ 
ceedingly barren of physiognomical terms. Were it a 
true science, the language of the vulgar would have 
been proverbially rich in its terms. The nose occurs in 
a hundred proverbs and phrases, but always pathogno- 
mically, denoting past action, but never physiognomically, 
betokening character or disposition.” 

Instead of a hundred^ I am acquainted with only one 
such phrase, nasen rumfe, to turn up the nose. Hottio 
obesce, ohtusce navis, said the ancients; and, had they not 
said it, what could thence have been adduced, since we 
can prove a posteriori that the nose is a physiognomical 
sign of character ? 

I have not learning sufficient, nor have I the inclina¬ 
tion to cite sufficient proofs of the contrary from Homer, 
Suetonius, Martial, and an hundred others. That which 
is is, whether perceived by the ancients or not. Such 
dust might blind a school-boy, but not the eyes of a sage, 
who sees for himself, and who knows that each age has 
its measure of discovery, and that there are those who 
fail not to exclaim against all discoveries which were 
made by the ancients. 

I should be glad to know, (says our author,) not what 
man may become, but what he is.” 

I must confess that I wish to know both. Many 
vicious men resemble valuable paintings, which have 
been destroyed by varnish. Would you pay no atten¬ 
tion to such a painting ? Is it wholly unworthy of you. 


REMARKS OK LICHTENBERG. 


171 


though a connoisseur should assure you the picture is 
damaged, hut there is a possibility of clearing away the 
earnish, as this master’s colours are so strongly laid on, 
and so essentially good, that no varnish can penetrate 
deep enough, if we are but careful in bringing it away 
not to injure the picture ? Is this of no importance ? 
You observe the smallest change of position in the polar 
star. Days are dedicated to examine how many ages 
shall elapse before it will arrive at the nearest point of 
approach. I do not despise your labours. But is it of 
no importance to you, to fathers, mothers, guardians, 
teachers, friends, and statesmen, to inquire what a man 
may become, or what must be expected from this or that 
youth, thus and thus formed and educated? Many 
foolish people are like excellent watches, which would 
go well were the regulator but rectified. 

Is the goodness of the mechanism of no consequence 
to you, although a skilful watchmaker should tell you, 
this was and is an excellent piece of workmanship, 
infinitely better than that which you see set with 
brilliants, which, I grant, will go well for a quarter of a 
year, but wiU then stop? Clean this, repair it, and 
straighten the teeth of this small wheel. Is this advice 
of no importance ? WiU you not be informed what it 
might have been, what it may yet probably be ? Will 
you not hear of a treasure that lies buried, and, while 
buried, I own useless; but wUl you content yourself 
with the trifiiug interest arising from this or that small 
sum ? 

Is your attention paid only to the fruit of the present 
year, and which is perhaps forced ? And do you 
neglect the goodness of a tree which, with attention, 
may bring forth a thousandfold, though under certain 


172 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


circumstances it may have brought forth none ? Have 
the hot blasts of the south parched up its black leaves 
or has the storm blown down its half-ripened fruit, and 
will you therefore not inquire whether the root does not 
still flourish ? 

I find I grow weary, and perhaps weary others, 
especially as I am more and more convinced that our 
pleasant author, at least hitherto, meant only to amuse 
himself. I shall therefore only produce two more con¬ 
tradictions which ought not to have escaped the author, 
and scarcely can escape any thinking reader. 

He very properly says in one place,pathognomical 
signs, often repeated, are not always entirely effaced, but 
leave physiognomical impressions. Hence originate the 
lines of folly, ever gaping, ever admiring, nothing under¬ 
standing; hence the traits of hypocrisy; hence the hollowed 
cheek, the wrinkles of obstinacy, and heaven knows how 
many other wrinkles. Pathognomical distortion, which 
accompanies the practice of vice, wiU likewise, in con¬ 
sequence of the disease it produces, become more distorted 
and hateful. Thus may the pathognomical expression 
of friendship, compassion, sincerity, piety, and other 
moral beauties, become bodily beauty to such as can 
perceive and admire these qualities. On this is founded 
the physiognomy of Gallert, which is the only true part 
of physiognomy. This is of infinite advantage to virtue, 
and is comprehended in a few words—virtue beautifies, 
vice deforms.” 

The branch therefore hath effect, the root none; the 
fruit has physiognomy, the tree none; the laugh of 
self-sufacient vanity may therefore arise from the most 
humble of hearts, and the appearance of folly from the 
perfection of wisdom. The wrinkles of hypocrisy. 


EEMARKS ON LICHTENBEUG. 


173 


therefore, are not the result of any internal power or 
weakness. The author will always fix our attention on 
the dial-plate, and will never speak of the power of the 
watch itself. But take away the dial-plate, and still the 
hand will go. Take away those pathognomical traits 
which dissimulation sometimes can effect, and the 
internal power of impulse wfil remain. How contra¬ 
dictory therefore is it to say, the traits of folly are there, 
but not the character of folly; the drop of water is 
visible, but the fountain, the ocean, is not 1 

Again. It is certainly incongruous to say, “ There is 
pathognomy, but this is as unnecessary (to be written) 
as an act of love. It chiefly consists in the motion of 
the muscles of the countenance and the eyes, and is 
learned by all men. To teach this would be like an 
attempt to number the sands of the sea!” 

Yet the author in the very next page, with great 
acuteness begins to teach pathognomy, by explaining 
twelve of the countenances of Chodowiecki, in which how 
much is there included of the science of physiognomy! 

Give me now leave, my worthy antagonist—^yet no 
longer antagonist, but friend convinced by truth, and 
the love of truth—I say, give me leave to transcribe, in 
one continued quotation, some of your excellent thoughts 
and remarks from your essay, and elucidations on the 
countenances of Chodowiecki, part of which have 
been already cited in this fragment, and part not. I am 
convinced they will be agreeable to my readers. 

“Our judgment concerning countenances frequently 
acquires certainty, not from physiognomical nor patho¬ 
gnomical signs, but from the traces of recent actions, 
which men cannot shake off. Debauchery, avarice, 
beggary, have each their livery, by which they are as 


174 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


well known as tke soldier by bis uniform, or the chimney¬ 
sweeper by his sooty jacket. The addition of a trifling 
expletive in discourse TYill betray the badness of educa- 
/ tion; and the manner of putting on the hat what is the 
\ company we keep, and what the degree of our folly.” 

Suffer me here to add, Shall not then the whole form of 
man discover any thing of his talents and dispositions ? 
Can the most milky candour here forget the straining at 
a gnat and swallowing a camel ? 

“Maniacs will often not be known to be disordered 
in their senses, if not in action. More will often be 
discovered concerning what a man really is, by his dress, 
behaviour, and mode of paying his compliments, at his 
first visit and introduction, in a single quarter of an 
hour, than in all the time he shall remain. Cleanliness 
and simplicity of manner will often conceal passions. 

“ No satisfactory conclusions can often be drawn from 
the countenances of the most dangerous men. Their 
thoughts are all concealed under an appearance of 
melancholy. Whoever has not remarked this, is un¬ 
acquainted with mankind. The heart of the vicious 
man is always less easy to be read the better his 
education has been, the more ambition he has, and the 
better the company he has been accustomed to keep. 

“ Cowardice and vanity, governed by an inclination to 
pleasure and indolence, are not marked with strength 
equivalent to the mischief they occasion; while, on the 
contrary, fortitude in defence of justice, against all 
opponents whatever, be their rank and influence what it 
may, and the conscious feeling of real self-worth, often 
look very dangerous, especially when unaccompanied by 
a smiling mouth. 

“ Specious as the objections brought by the sophistry 


REMARKS ON LICHTENBERG. 


175 


of the sensual may be, it is notwithstanding certain, that 
there is no possible durable beauty wiihout virtue, and 
the most hateful deformity may, by the aid of virtue, 
acquire irresistible charms. Examples of such perfection, 
among persons of both sexes, I own are uncommon, but 
not more so than heavenly sincerity, modest compliance 
without self-degradation, universal philanthropy without 
busy intrusion, a love of order without being minute, or 
neatness without foppery, which are the virtues that 
produce such irresistible charms. 

“Vice, in like manner, in persons yielding to its 
influence, may highly deform; especially when, in conse¬ 
quence of bad education, and want of knowledge of the 
traits of moral beauty, or of will to assume them, the 
vicious may find no day, no hour, in which to repair the 
depredations of vice. 

“Where is the person who will not listen to the 
mouth, in which no trait, no shade of falsehood, is dis¬ 
coverable ? Let it preach the experience of what 
wisdom, what science it may, comfort will ever be the 
harbinger of such a physician, and confidence hasten to 
welcome his approach. 

“ One of the most hateful objects in the creation, says 
a certain writer, is a vicious and deformed old woman. 
We may also say that the virtuous matron, in whose 
countenance goodness and the ardour of benevolence 
are conspicuous, is an object most worthy our reverence. 
Age never deforms the countenance when the mind 
dares appear unmasked; it only wears off the fresh 
varnish, under which coquetry, vanity, and vice were 
concealed. Wherever age is exceedingly deformed, the 
same deformity would have been visible in youth to the 
attentive observer. 


176 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


This is no difficult matter, and were men to act from 
conviction, instead of flattering themselves with the 
hope of fortunate accidents, happy marriages would he 
more frequent; and, as Shakspeare says, the bonds 
which should unite hearts would not so often strangle 
temporal happiness.” 

This certainly is the language of the lieart. Oh! that 
I could have written my fragments in company with 
such an observer! AVho could have rendered greater 
services to physiognomy than the man who, with the 
genius of a mathematician, possesses so accurate a spirit 
of observation ? 


CHAPTER XXXIL 




Oj^ \ Description of Plate 
y Number 1. 


VViLLiAM Hondius, a Dutch engraver, after Vandyc' 


-We here see mild, languid, slow industry, with enter¬ 
prising, daring, conscious heroism. This forehead is 
rounded, not indeed common nor ignoble. The eyebrows 
are curved, the eyes languid and sinking, and the whole 
countenance oval, ductile, and maidenly. 


Number 2. 


This head, if not stupid, is at, least common; if not 
rude, clumsy. I grant it is a caricature; yet, however, 
there is something sharp and fine in the eye and mouth, 
which a connoisseur will discover. 

Number 3. 

This is manifestly a Turk, by the arching and position 
of the forehead, the hind part of the head, the eyebrows. 



j^Iat'e /. 





^&iSSBSUVR._w. > - >^>c»> _'' 

Alhort !>ur*'r. /. 

L __ 


.MoiKM'if j 

































































t J 


• •* 


•• u'.' 


0 

E-- 




' 


'v—jevv.V'A-.-. 


■ \ «r ■ 


t f 


"T'" ^ 


ffe'. ■ ; 

* »*«-'■ ~ J^riT I » *." « A 

’WJS/*. '• S’*- • 


'“* X . 

• ^ .rs" 

3 i . *3 ;>.. 



r*. 


V 






mr^--- 


'4 




f ^ 


' I. 






^ 7» • V • 1 ^p 

- "'A : ' ■ ' ■’ i6,^^ * 





V « 


T 1 


■ • ^ 


I : 


■ ''s^^ ^ -t • **^ '''^ »■ 

, ** ■ ■• .VV' '*■'' ■• •■ - . 

■ - ••.■:1'-- • ' '■ ■ 
V - • •■• '--mV. V 


■^1 ^ 


I ^ 


’/ 5t p 'L < ‘ ^ V ' ■ 

7>‘.‘ V 


i; 
«■■ T 




k'^ 


*fc'. J • ■ 




• > 
'tt 


f • 


- ■'■« 

^Jl 


><V -V 







t 



7v . ^ fc. ■- 

:OV ^V 

•' ''->•#. 


••• < 


• * 


j 


; ^ V 


w 

^ 




;r • 


N* 


' \ 

— . ^ ' 

V -X”* 

' « 






'X? ‘• • 

'^fcf ••. ^ » 


.>r i j 


•> 


- ■ «;»•' -i. 1. 

•4 ^ ^0^ 


’ ’V i 

’ - *• ^ J' \ . •. 

•: ' • *./ . ' •, •• 


m 

W*' 

•. 




‘‘ / 


* « 
X 


.i- •. 


' <- 


./ • 




. . r*' ' • .• 

v‘.' t:j 



%4 


J 




kjK'‘S^k^ 


•V'sr 


-■v ' 



REMARKS ON WOMEN. 


177 


and particularly the nose. The aspect is that of obser¬ 
vation, with a degree of curiosity: the open mouth 
denotes remarking, with some reflection. 

Numler 4. 

It must be a depraved taste which can call this grace¬ 
ful, and therefore it must be far from majestic. I should 
neither wish a wife, mother, sister,friend, relation,nor god¬ 
dess, to possess a countenance so cold, insipid, afiected, 
stony, unimpassioned, or so perfectly a statue. 

Number 5. 

JL- 

The strong grimace of an impoi^Jant madman, who 
distorts himself without meaning. In the eye is neither 
attention, fury, littleness, nor greatness. 

Number 6. 

The eyes in this head are benevolently stupid. 
Wherever so much white is seen as in the left eye, if in 
company with such a mouth, there is seldom much 
wisdom. 


CHAPTER XXXIII. 

General BemarTcs on Women. 

It may be necessary for me to say, that I am but 
little acquainted with the female part of the human 
race. Any man of the world must know more of them 
than I can pretend to know. My opportunities of 
seeing them at the theatre, at balls, or at the card-table, 
where they best may be studied, have been exceedingly 
few. In my youth I almost avoided women, and was 
never in love. 

N 



178 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Perhaps I ought, for this very reason, to have left this 
very important part of physiognomy to one much better 
informed, having myself so little knowledge of the fair 
sex. Yet might not such neglect have been dangerous ? 
Might another have treated the subject in a manner 
which I could wish ? or, would he have said the little I 
have to say, and which, though little, I esteem to he 
necessary and important ? 

I cannot help shuddering when I think how ex¬ 
cessively, how contrary to my intention, the study of 
physiognomy may he abused when applied to women. 
Physiognomy will perhaps fare no better than philosophy, 
poetry, p^iysic, or whatever may he termed art or science. 
A little philosophy leads to atheism, and much to Chris¬ 
tianity. Thus must it be with physiognomy ; hut I will 
not he discouraged; the half precedes the whole. We 
learn to walk by falling, and shall we forbear to walk 
lest we should fall ? 

I can with certainty say, that true pure physiogno¬ 
mical sensation, in respect to the female sex, best can 
season and improve life, and is the most effectual pre¬ 
servative against the degradation of ourselves and others. 

Best can season and improve human ^^/e.-fWhat better 
can temper manly rudeness, or strengthen and support 
the weakness of man, what so soon can assuage the rapid 
blaze of wrath, what more charm masculine power, what 
so quickly dissipate peevishness and ill-temper, what so 
well can while away the insipid tedious hours of life, as 
the near and affectionate look of a noble, beautiful 
woman ? i What is so strong as her soft delicate hand ? 
What so persuasive as her tears restrained ? Who but 
beholding her must cease to sin ? How can the spirit 
of God act more omnipotently upon the heart, than by 


REMARKS ON WOMEN. 


179 


the extending and increasing physiognomical sensation 
for such an eloquent countenance ? What so well can 
season daily insipidity ? I scarcely can conceive a gift 
of more paternal and divine benevolence. 

This has sweetened every bitter of my life; this alone 
has supported me under the most corroding cares, when 
the sorrows of a bursting heart wanted vent, my eyes 
swam in tears, and my spirit groaned with anguish. 
Then, when men have daily asked, “ Where is now thy 
God?” when they rejected the sympathy, the affection of 
my soul, with rude contemptuous scorn; when acts of 
honest simplicity were calumniated, and the sacred im¬ 
pulse of conscious truth was ridiculed, hissed at, and 
despised; in those burning moments, when the world 
afforded no comfort, even then did the Almighty open 
mine eyes—even then did he give me an unfailing 
source of joy, contained in a gentle, tender, but internally 
firm, female mind; an aspect like that of unpractised, 
cloistered virginity, which felt and was able to efface each 
emotion, each passion in the most concealed feature of 
her husband’s countenance, and who by those means, 
without any thing of what the world calls beauty, shone 
forth beauteous as an angel. Can there be a more noble 
or important practice than that of physiognomical sensa¬ 
tion for beauties so captivating, so excellent as these ? 

This physiognomical sensation is the most effectual 
preservative against the degradation of ourselves and others. 
—What can more readily discover the boundary between 
appetite and affection, or cunning under the mask of 
sensibility ? What sooner can distinguish desire from 
love, or love from friendship ? What can more reverently, 
internally, and profoundly feel the sanctity of innocence, 
the divinity of maiden purity, or sooner detect coquetry 


180 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


unblessed, with wiles affecting every look of modesty ? 
How often will suck a physiognomist turn contemptuous 
from the beauties most adored, from the wretched pride 
of their silence, their measured affectation of speech, the 
insipidity of their eyes, arrogantly overlooking misery 
and poverty; their authoritative nose, their languid, 
unmeaning lips, relaxed by contempt, blue with envy, 
and half-bitten through by artifice and malice! The 
obviousness of these and many others will preserve him 
who can see, from the dangerous charms of their shame¬ 
less bosoms! How fully convinced is the man of pure 
physiognomical sensation, that he cannot be more 
degraded than by suffering himself to be ensnared by 
such a countenance! Be this one proof among a 
thousand. 

But if a noble, spotless maiden but appear; all 
innocence, and all soul; aU love, and of love aU worthy, 
which must as suddenly be felt as she manifestly feels; 
if in her large arched forehead all the capacity of im¬ 
measurable intelligence which wisdom can communicate, 
be visible; if her compressed but not frowning eyebrows 
speak an unexplored mine of understanding, or her gentle 
outlined or sharpened nose, refined taste, with sympa¬ 
thetic goodness of heart, which flows through the clear 
teeth over her pure and efficient lips; if she breathe 
humility and complacency; if condescension and mild¬ 
ness be in each motion of her mouth, dignified wisdom 
in each tone of her voice; if her eyes, neither too open 
nor too close, but looking straight forward, or gently 
turned, speak the soul that seeks a sisterly embrace; 
is she be superior to all the powers of description; if all 
the glories of her angelic form be imbibed like the mild 
and golden rays of an autumnal evening sun; may not 


REMARKS ON MALE AND FEMALE. 


181 


then this so highly-prized, physiognomical sensation be a 
destructive snare or sin, or both ? 

“If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be ^ full 
of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give 
thee light.” And what is physiognomical sensation but 
this singleness of eye ? The soul is not to be seen with¬ 
out the body, but in the body; and the more it is thus 
seen, the more sacred to thee will the body be. What I 
man, having this sensation, which God has bestowed, 
wouldst thou violate the sanctuary of God? Wouldst 
thou degrade, defame, debilitate, and deprive it of sen¬ 
sibility ? Shall he, whom a good or great countenance 
does not inspire with reverence and love, incapable of 
offence, speak of physiognomical sensation; of that 
which is the revelation of the spirit? Nothing main¬ 
tains chastity so entire, nothing so truly preserves the 
thoughts from brutal passion, nothing so reciprocally 
exalts souls, as when they are mutually held in sacred 
purity. The contemplation of power awakens reverence, 
and the picture of love inspires love; not selfish grati¬ 
fication, but that pure passion with which spirits of 
heaven embrace. 


CHAPTER XXXIV. 

General Remarks on Male and Female.—A Word on the 
Physiognomical Relation of the Sexes. 

Geneeally speaking, how much more pure, tender, 
delicate, irritable, affectionate, flexible, and patient, is 
woman than man! The primary matter of which they 
are constituted appears to be more flexible, irritable, and 
elastic than that of man. They are formed to maternal 



182 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


mildness and affection. All their organs are tender, 
yielding, easily wounded, sensible, and receptible. 

Among a thousand females there is scarcely one with¬ 
out the generic feminine signs, the flexible, the circular, 
and the irritable. They are the counterpart of man, 
taken out of man, to be subject to man; to comfort him 
like angels, and to lighten his cares. “ She shall be safe 
in child-bearing, if they continue in faith, and charity, 
and holiness, with sobriety.”—(1 Tim. ii. 15.) 

This tenderness and sensibility, this light texture of 
their fibres and organs, this volatility of feeling, render 
them so easy to conduct and to tempt; so ready of 
submission to the enterprise and power of the man; but 
more powerful through the aid of their charms than 
man, with all his strength. The man was not first 
tempted, but the woman, afterwards the man by the 
woman. And not only easily to be tempted, she is 
capable of being formed to the purest, noblest, most 
seraphic virtue; to every thing which can deserve praise 
or affection. 

Truly sensible of purity, beauty, and symmetry, she 
does not always take time to reflect on internal life, 
internal death, internal corruption. “The woman saw 
that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant 
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, 
and she took of the fruit thereof.” 

The female thinks not profoundly; profound thought 
is the power of the man. Women feel more: sensibility 
is the power of womeh. They often rule more effec¬ 
tually, more sovereignly, than man. They rule with 
tender looks, tears, and sighs, but not with passion and 
threats; for if they so rule, they are no longer wnmen, 
but abortions. 


REMARKS ON MALE AND FEMALE. 


183 


They are capable of the sweetest sensibility, the most 
profound emotion, the utmost humility, and the excess 
of enthusiasm. In the countenance are the signs of 
sanctity and inviolability, which every feeling man 
honours, and the effects of which are often miraculous. 
Therefore, by the irritability of their nerves, their in¬ 
capacity for deep inquiry and firm decision, they may 
easily, from their extreme sensibility, become the most 
irreclaimable, the most rapturous enthusiasts. 

The love of woman, strong and rooted as it is, is very 
changeable; their hatred almost incurable, and only to 
be effaced by continued and artful flattery. Men are 
most profound, women are more sublime. Men most 
embrace the whole; women remark individually, and 
take more delight in selecting the minutiae which form 
thb whole. Man hears the bursting thunders, views the 
destructive bolt with serene aspect, and stands erect 
amidst the fearful majesty of the streaming clouds. 
Woman trembles at the lightning and the voice of 
distant thunder, and shrinks into herself, or sinks into 
the arms of man. 

A ray of light is singly received by man; woman 
delights to view it through a prism, in all its dazzling 
colours. She contemplates the rainbow as the promise 
of peace; he extends his inquiring eye over the whole 
horizon. 

Woman laughs, man smiles; woman weeps, man 
remains silent. Woman is in anguish when man weeps, 
and in despair when man is in anguish; yet has she 
often more faith than man. Without religion, man is a 
diseased creature, who would persuade himself he is 
well, and needs not a physician : but woman, without 
religion, is raging and monstrous A woman with a 


184 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


beard is not so disgusting as a woman who acts the free¬ 
thinker; her sex is formed to pity and religion. To 
them Christ first appeared; but he was obliged to 
prevent them from too ardently and too hastily embra¬ 
cing him —Tmich me not They are prompt to receive 
and seize novelty, and become its enthusiasts. 

In the presence and proximity of him they love, the 
whole world is forgotten. They sink into the most 
incurable melancholy, as they rise to the most 
enraptured heights. 

There is more imagination in male sensation, in the 
female more heart. When communicative, they are 
more communicative than man; when secret, more 
secret. In general they are more patient, long-suffering, 
credulous, benevolent, and modest. . 

Woman is not a foundation on which to build. She 
is the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, 
(1 Cor. iii. 12;) the materials for building on the male 
foundation. She is the leaven, or, more expressively, 
the oil to the vinegar of man; the second part to the 
book of man. Man singly is but half a man, at least 
but half human; a king without a kingdom. Woman, 
who feels properly what she is, whether still or in 
motion, rests upon the man; nor is man what he may 
and ought to be but in conjunction with woman. 
Therefore “ It is not good that man should be alone, but 
that he should leave father and mother, and cleave to 
his wife, and that they two shaU be one flesh.” 

A Word on the Physiognomical Relation of the Sexes. 

Man is the most firm, woman the most flexible. 

Man is the straightest, woman the most bending. 

Man stands steadfast, woman gently retreats. 


PHYSIOGNOMY OF YOUTH. 185 

Man surveys and observes, woman glances and feels. 

Man is serious, woman is gay. 

Man is tbe tallest and broadest, woman the smallest 
and weakest. 

Man is rough and hard, woman is smooth and soft. 

Man is brown, woman is fair. 

Man is wrinkly, woman is not. 

The hair of man is strong and short, of woman more 
long and pliant. 

The eyebrows of man are compressed, of woman less 
frowning. 

Man has most convex lines, woman most concave. 

Man has most straight lines, woman most curved. 

The countenance of man, taken in profile, is not so 
often perpendicular as that of the woman. 

Man is the most angular, woman most round. 


CHAPTER XXXV. 

On the Physiognomy of Youth, 

Extracts from Zimmerman’s Life of Haller. 

“ The first years of the youth include the history of 
the man. They develop the qualities of the soul, the 
materials of future conduct, and the true features of 
temperament. In riper years dissimulation prevails, or, 
at least, that modification of our thoughts which is the 
consequence of experience and knowledge. 

*'The characteristics of the passions, which are 
undeniably discovered to us by the peculiar art 
denommated physiognomy, are effaced in the counte¬ 
nance by age; while, on the contrary, their true signs 



186 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


are visible in youth. The original materials of man 
are unchangeable; he is drawn in colours that have no 
deceit. The boy is the work of nature, the man .of art.” 

My worthy Zimmerman, how much of the true, how 
much of the false, at least of the indefinite, is there in 
this passage! According to my conception, I see the 
clay, the mass, in the youthful countenance; but not 
the form of the future man. There are passions and 
powers of youth, and passions and powers of age. These 
often are contradictory in the same man, yet are they 
contained one within the other. Time produces the 
expression of latent traits. A man is but a boy seen 
through a magnifpng-glass; I always, therefore, per¬ 
ceive more in the countenance of a man than of a boy. 
Dissimulation may indeed conceal the moral materials, 
but not alter their form. The growth of powers and 
passions imparts, to the first undefined sketch of what is 
called a boy’s countenance, the firm traits, shading, and 
colouring of manhood. 

There are youthful countenances which declare 
whether they ever shall, or shall not, ripen into man. 
This they declare, but they only declare it to the great 
physiognomist. I will acknowledge when, which seldom 
happens, the form of the head is beautiful, conspicuous, 
proportionate, greatly featured, well defined, and not 
too feebly coloured, it will be difficult that the result 
should be common or vulgar. I likewise know that 
where the form is distorted, especially when it is trans¬ 
verse, extended, undefined, or too harshly defined, much 
can rarely be expected. But how much do the forms of 
youthful countenances change, even in the system of 
the bones I 

A great deal has been said of the openness, undegene- 


PHYSIOGNOMY OP YOUTH. 


187 


racy, simplicity, and ingemionsness of a childish and 
youthful countenance. It may be so ; but, for my own 
part, I must own I am not so fortunate as to be able 
to read a youthful countenance with the same degree of 
quickness and precision, however small that degree, as 
one that is manly. The more I converse with and 
consider children, the more difficult do I find it to 
pronounce, with certainty, concerning their character. 
Kot that I do not meet countenances, among children 
and boys, most strikingly and positively significant; yet 
seldom is the great outline of the youth so definite as for 
us to be able to read in it the man. The most remark¬ 
ably advantageous young countenances may easily, 
through accident, terror, hurt, or severity in parents or 
tutors, be internally injured, without any apparent injury 
to the whole. The beautiful, the eloquent form, the 
firm forehead, the deep sharp eye, the cheerful, open, 
free, quick-moving mouth remain; there will only be a 
drop of troubled water in what else appears so clear; only 
an uncommon, scarcely remarkable, perhaps convulsive 
motion of the mouth. Thus is hope overthrown, and 
beauty rendered indistinct. 

As simplicity is the soil of variety, so is innocence for 
the products of vice. Simplicity, not of a youth, but of 
a child, in thee the Omniscient only views the progress 
of sleeping passion; the gentle wrinkles of youth, the 
deep of manhood, and the manifold and relaxed of age. 
Oh ! how different was my infantine countenance to the 
present, in form and speech! But, as transgression 
follows innocence, so doth virtue transgression. 

Doth the vessel say to the potter, '^Wherefore hast 
thou made me thus ?—I am little, but I am He 
who created me, did not create me to be a child, but a 


188 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


man. Wherefore should I ruminate on the pleasures of 
childhood, unhurthened with cares ? I am what I am. 
I will forget the past, nor weep that I am no longer a 
child, when I contemplate children in all their loveliness. 
To join the powers of man with the simplicity of the 
child, is the height of all my hopes. God grant they 
may he accomplished! 


CHAPTEK XXXVI. 

Physiognomical Extracts from an Essay inserted in the 
Deutschen Museum, a German Journal or Review, 

From this essay I shall extract only select thoughts, 
and none hut such as I suppose importantly true, false, 
or dl defined. 


1 . 

" Men with arched and pointed noses are said to he 
witty, and that the hlunt noses are not so.” 

A more accurate definition is necessary, which, 
without drawing, is almost impossible. Is it meant hy 
arched noses, arched in length or in breadth? How 
arched ? This is almost as indeterminate as when we 
speak of arched foreheads. ALL foreheads are arched. 
Innumerable noses are arched, the most witty and the 
most stupid. Wkere is the highest point of arching? 
Where does it begin? What is its extent? What is 
its strength ? 

It must be allowed that people with tender, thin, 
sharply-defined, angular noses, pointed below, and some¬ 
thing inclined towards the lip, are witty, when no other 
features contradict these tokens; but that people with 



THTSIOGNOMICAL EXTRACTS. 


189 


blunt noses are not so, is not entirely true. It can only 
be said of certain blunt noses; for there are others of this 
kind extremely witty, though their wit is certainly of a 
different kind to that of the pointed nose. 

2 

“ It is asked, (supposing for a moment that the arched 
and the blunt nose denote the presence or absence of 
wit,) Is the arched nose the mere sign that a man is witty, 
which supposes his wdt to originate in some occult 
cause, or is the nose itself the cause of wit ? ” 

I answer, sign, cause, and effect combined. Sign; for 
it betokens the wit, and is an involuntary expression 
of wit. Cause; at least cause that the wit is not greater, 
less, or of a different quality, boundary cause. Effect; 
produced by the quantity, measure, or activity of the 
mind, which suffers not the nose to alter its form, to be 
greater or less. We are not only to consider the form 
as form, but the matter of which it is moulded, the 
conformability of which is determined by the nature and 
ingredients of this matter, which is probably the origin 
of the form. 

True indeed it is, that there are blunt noses which 
are incapable of receiving a certain quantity of wit; 
therefore it may be said, with more subtlety than 
philosophy, they form an insuperable barrier. 

3 . 

The correspondence of external figures with internal 
qualities is not the consequence of external circumstances, 
but rather of physical combination. They are related 
like cause and effect; or, in other words, physiognomy is 
not the mere image of internal jnan, but the efficient 


190 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


cause. The form and arrangement of the muscles deter¬ 
mine the mode of thought and sensibility of the man.” 

I add, these are also determined by the mind of man. 

4. 

''A broad conspicuous forehead is said to denote 
penetration. This is natural. The muscle of the fore¬ 
head is necessary to deep thought. If it be narrow and 
contracted, it cannot render the same service as if spread 
out Like a sail.” 

I shall here, without contradicting the general pro¬ 
position of the author, more definitely add—It is, if you 
please, generally true, that the more brain the more 
mind and capacity. The most stupid animals are those 
with least brain, and those with most the wisest. Man, 
generally wiser, has more brain than other animals; 
and it appears just to conclude from analogy, that wise 
men have more brain than the foolish. But accurate 
observation teaches, that this proposition, to be true, 
requires much definition and limitation. 

Where the matter and form of the brain are similar, 
there the greater space for the residence of the brain is, 
certainly the sign, cause, and effect of more and deeper 
impression; therefore, cceteris paribus, a larger quantity 
of brain, and consequently a spacious forehead, is more 
intelligent than the reverse. But as we frequently live 
more conveniently in a small well-contrived chamber 
than in more magnificent apartments, so do we find that 
in many small, short foreheads, with less, or apparently 
less brain than others, the wise mind resides at its ease. 

I have known many short, oblique, straight-lined 
(when compared with others apparently arched, or really 
well arched) foreheads, which were much wiser, more 


PHYSIOGNOMICAL EXTRACTS. 


191 


intelligent, and penetrating, than the most broad and 
conspicuous; many of which latter I have seen in 
extremely weak men. It seems to me, indeed, a much 
more general proposition, that short compressed foreheads 
are wise and understanding; though this, likewise, 
without being more accurately defined, is far from being 
generally true. 

But it is true that large spacious foreheads, which, if 
I do not mistake, Galen, and after him Huart, have 
supposed the most propitious to deep thinking, which 
form a half sphere, are usually the most stupid. The 
more any forehead (I do not speak of the whole skull) 
approaches a semi-spherical form, the more is it weak, 
effeminate, and incapable of reflection, and this I speak 
from repeated experience. 

The more straight lines a forehead has, the less capa¬ 
cious it must he; for the more it is arched the more 
must it he roomy, and the more straight lines it has the 
more must it he contracted. This greater quantity of 
straight lines, when the forehead is not flat like a hoard, 
for such flatness takes away all understanding, denotes an 
increase of judgment, hut a diminution of sensibility. 
There undoubtedly are, however, broad capacious fore¬ 
heads, without straight lines, particularly adapted to 
profound thinking; hut these are conspicuous by their 
ohhque outlines. 

5. 

What the author has said concerning enthusiasts 
requires much greater precision before it ought to he 
adopted as true. 

" Enthusiasts are said commonly to have flat perpen¬ 
dicular foreheads.” 


192 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Oval, cylindrical, 'pointed at top, should have been 
said of those enthusiasts who are calm, cold-blooded, 
and always continue the same. Other enthusiasts, that 
is to say, such as are subject to a variety of sensation, 
illusion, and sensual experience, seldom have cylindrical 
or sugar-loaf heads. The latter when enthusiasts, heat 
their imagination concerning words and types, the 
signification of which they do not understand, and are 
philosophical, unpoetical enthusiasts. Enthusiasts of 
imagination or of sensibility seldom have flat forms of 
the countenance. 


6 . 

''Obstinate, like enthusiastic, persons have perpen¬ 
dicular foreheads.” 

The perpendicular always denotes coldness, inactivity, 
narrowness; hence flrmness, fortitude, pertinacity, obsti¬ 
nacy, and enthusiasm may be there. Absolute perpen¬ 
dicularity and absolute folly are the same. 


7. 

“ Such disposition of mind is accompanied by a certain 
appearance or motion of the muscles; consequently the 
appearance of man, which is natural to, and ever present 
with him, will be accompanied by, and denote his 
natural disposition of mind. Countenances are so 
formed originally, that to one this, and to another that 
appearance is the easiest. It is absolutely impossible 
for foUy to assume the appearance of wisdom, otherwise 
it would no longer be foUy. The worthy man cannot 
assume the appearance of dishonesty, or he would be 
dishonest.” 

This is all excellent, the last excepted. No man is so 


PHYSIOGNOMICAL EXTRACTS. 193 

good as not, under certain circumstances, to be liable to 
become dishonest. He is so organized that be may be 
so overtaken by the pleasure of stealing, when ac¬ 
companied by the temptation. The possibility of the 
appearance must be there, as well as the possibility of 
the act. He must also be able to assume the appear¬ 
ance of dishonesty when he observes it in a thief, 
without necessarily becoming .a thief. The possibility 
of assuming the appearance of goodness is, in my 
opinion, very different. The appearance of vice is 
always more easily assumed by the virtuous, than the 
appearance of virtue by the vicious; as it is evidently 
much easier to become bad when we are good, than 
good when we are bad. Understanding, sensibility, 
talents, genius, virtue, or religion, may with much 
greater facility be lost than acquired. The best may 
descend as low as they please, but the worst cannot 
ascend to the height they might wish. The wise man 
may physically, without a miracle, become a fool, and 
the most virtuous vicious; but the idiot-born cannot, 
without a miracle, become a philosopher, nor the 
distorted villain noble and pure of heart. The most 
beautiful complexion may become jaundiced, may be 
lost; but the Negro cannot be washed white. I shall 
not become a Negro because, to imitate him, I blacken 
my face, nor a thief because I assume the appearance 
of one. 

8 . 

''It is the business of a physiognomist to inquire 
what is the appearance the countenance can most easily 
assume, and he will thence learn what is the disposition 
of mind; not that physiognomy is therefore an easy 

0 


194 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


science. On the contrary, this rather shows how much 
ability, imagination, and genius, are necessary to the 
physiognomist. Attention must not only he paid to 
what is visible, but what would be visible under various 
other circumstances.” 

This is excellent; and I add, that as a physician can 
presage what alteration of colour, appearance, or form, 
shall be the consequence of a known disease, of the 
existence of which he is certain, so can the accurate 
physiognomist what appearances or expressions are easy 
or difficult to each kind of muscle and form of forehead, 
what action is or is not permitted, and what wrinkles 
may or may not take place, under any given circum¬ 
stances. 


9. 

“When a learner draws a countenance, we shall 
commonly find it is foolish, and never malicious, satirical, 
and the like. May not the essence of a foolish counte¬ 
nance hence be abstracted ? Certainly; for what is the 
cause of this appearance ? The learner is incapable of 
preserving proportion, and the strokes are unconnected. 
What is the stupid countenance ? It is one, the parts 
of which are defectively connected, and the muscles im¬ 
properly formed and arranged. Thought and sensation, 
therefore, of which these are the inseparable instruments, 
must be alike feeble and dormant. 

10 . 

“ There is another substance in the body, exclusive of 
the muscles; that is to say, the skull, or bones in gene¬ 
ral, to which the physiognomist attends. The position 
of the muscles depends on these. How might the 




PHYSIOGNOMICAL EXTRACTS. 195 

muscle of the forehead have the position proper for 
thought, if the forehead hones, over which it is extended, 
had not the necessary arch and superficies ? The figure 
of the skull, therefore, defines the figure and position of 
the muscles which define thought and sensation.” 

11 . 

The hair affords us the same observation, as from 
the parts and position of the hair conclusions may he 
drawn. Why has the Negro woolly hair ? The thick¬ 
ness of the skin prevents the escape of certain of the 
particles of perspiration, and these render the skin 
opaque and black. Hence the hair shoots with diffi¬ 
culty, and scarcely has it penetrated before it curls, and 
its growth ceases. The hair spreads according to the 
form of the skull and the position of the muscles, and 
gives occasion to the physiognomist to draw conclusions 
from the hair to the position of the muscles, and to 
deduce other consequences.” 

It is clearly my opinion that our author is in the 
right road. He is the first who, to my knowledge, has 
perceived and felt the totality, the combination, the 
uniformity, of the various parts of the human body. 
What he has affirmed, especially concerning the hair, 
that we may from that make deductions concerning the 
nature of the body, and still farther of the mind, the least 
accurate observer may convince himself is truth, by 
daily experience. White, tender, clear, weak hair, always 
denotes weak, delicate, irritable, or rather a timid and 
easily oppressed organization. The black and curly will 
never be found on the delicate, tender, medullary head. 

As is the hair, so the muscles; as the muscles, so the 
nerves; as the nerves, so the bones: their powers are 


196 lavater’s physiognomy. 

mutual, and the powers of the mind to act, suffer, 
receive, and give, proportionate. Least irritability 
always accompanies short, hard, curly, black hair, and 
the most the flaxen and the tender; that is to say, 
irritability without elasticity. The one is oppressive 
without elasticity, and the other oppressed without 
resistance. 

Much hair, much fat; therefore, no part of the 
human body is more conspicuously covered with hair 
than the head and armpits. From the elasticity of the 
hair, deductions may with certainty be made to the 
elasticity of the character. The hair naturally betokens 
moisture, and may properly determine the quantity of 
moisture. The inhabitants of cold countries have hair 
more white, and, on the contrary, those of hot countries, 
black. Lionel Wafer observes, that the inhabitants of 
the isthmus of Darien have milkwhite hair. Few, if 
any, have green hair, except those who work in copper 
mines. We seldom find white hair betokening dis¬ 
honesty, but often dark brown or black, with light- 
coloured eyebrows. Women have longer hair than men. 
Men with long hair are always rather effeminate than 
manly. Dark hair is harsher than light, as is the hair 
of a man than that of a boy. 

12 . 

“As all depends on the quality of the muscles, it is 
evident that in these muscles which are employed for 
certain modes of thought and sensation, ought to be 
sought the expression of similar thoughts and sen¬ 
sations.” 

The search should not be neglected, though perhaps 
it will be difiicult to find them; and they certainly 


PHYSIOGNOMICAL EXTRACTS. 


197 


will there be defined with greater difficulty than in the 
forehead, 

13 . 

“The most important instrument to the abstract 
thinker is the muscle of the forehead; for which reason 
we always seek for abstract thought in the forehead.” 

Eather near and between the eyebrows. It is of con¬ 
sequence to remark the particular moment when the 
thinker is listening, or when he is preparing some acute 
answer. Seize the moment, and another of the im¬ 
portant tokens of physiognomy is obtained. 

14 . 

“Among people who do not abstract, and whose 
powers of mind are aU in action, men of wit, exquisite 
taste, and genius, all the muscles must he advanta¬ 
geously formed and arranged. Expression therefore, in 
such, must he sought in the whole countenance. 

Yet may it he found in the forehead alone, which is 
less sharp, straight-lined, perpendicular, and forked. 
The skin is less rigid, more easily moved, more flexible. 

15 . 

“How laborious has been the trouble to convince 
people that physiognomy is only generally useful! ” 

It is at this very moment disputed by men of the 
strongest minds. How long shall it continue so to be ? 
Yet I should suppose that he who curses the sun while 
exposed to its scorching rays, would, when in the shade, 
acknowledge its universal utility. 

“How affiicting is it to hear, from persons of the 
greatest learning, and who might be expected to enlarge 


198 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the boundaries of human understanding, the most 
superficial judgments ! How much is that great^era to 
he wished, when the knowledge of man shall become a 
part of natural history; when psychology, physiology, 
and physiognomy, shall go hand in hand, and lead us 
towards the confines of more general, more sublime 
illumination! ” 


CHAPTEE XXXVIL 
Eoctracts from Maximus Tyrius, 

“ As the soul of man is the nearest approach to the 
Deity, it was not proper that God should clothe that 
which most resembled himself in dishonourable gar¬ 
ments; but with a body befitting a mortal mind, and 
endowed with a proper capability of motion. This is 
the only body on earth that stands erect. It is 
magnificent, superb, and formed according to the best 
proportion of its most delicate parts. Its stature is not 
terrific, nor is its strength formidable. The coldness of 
its juices occasions it not to creep, nor their heat to fly. 
Man eats not raw flesh from the savageness of his 
nature, nor does he graze Hke the ox; but he is framed 
and adapted for the execution of his functions. To the 
wicked he is formidable, mild and friendly to the good. 
By nature he walks the earth, swims by art, and flies by 
imagination. He tills the earth, and enjoys its fruits. 
His complexion is beautiful, his limbs firm, his counte¬ 
nance is comely, and beard ornamental. By imitating 
his body, the Greeks have thought proper to honour 
their deities.” 

Wliy am I not able to speak with sufficient force? 



PHYSIOGNOMICAL EXTRACTS. 199 

Oh ! that I could find faith enough with my readers, to 
convince them how frequently my soul seems exalted 
above itself, while I contemplate the unspeakabty 
miraculous nature of the human body! Oh! that all 
the languages of the earth would lend me words, that I 
might turn the thoughts of men, not only to the 
contemplation of others, but, by the aid of these, to the 
contemplation of themselves I No anti-physiognomist 
can more despise my work than I myself shall, if I am 
unable to accomplish this purpose. How might I 
conscientiously write such a work, were not such my 
views ? If this be not impulse, no writer has impulse. 
I cannot behold the smallest trait, nor the inflection of 
any outline, without reading wisdom and benevolence, 
or without waking as if from a sweet dream into 
rapturous and actual existence, and congratulating 
myself that I also am a man. 

In each, the smallest outline of the human body, and 
how much more in all together—in each member sepa¬ 
rately, and how much more in the whole body, however 
old and ruinous the building may appear—how much 
is there contained of the study of God, the genius of 
God, the poetry of God ? My trembling and agitated 
breast frequently pants after leisure to look into the 
revelations of God. 


2 . 

“ Imagine to thyself the most translucent water flow¬ 
ing over a surface on which grow beauteous flowers, 
whose bloom, though beneath, is seen through the pellu¬ 
cid waves; even so it is with the fair flower of the soul, 
planted in a beauteous body, through which its beau¬ 
teous bloom is seen. The good formation of a youthful 


200 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


body is no other than the bloom of ripening virtue, and, 
as I may say, the presage of far higher perfection; for, 
as before the rising of the sun, the mountain-tops are 
gilded by his rays, enlivening the pleasing prospects, 
and promising the full approach of day, so also the future 
maturity of an illustrious soul shines through the body, 
and is to the philosopher the pleasing sign of approach¬ 
ing happiness.” 


CHAPTER XXXVIII. 

Extracts from a Manmcrvpt by Th - 

“ The relation between the male and female counte¬ 
nance is similar to that between youth and manhood. 
Our experience, that the deep or scarcely visible outline 
is in proportion to the depth or shallowness of thought, 
is one of the many proofs that Nature has impressed 
such forms upon her creatures as shall testify their 
qualities. That these forms or signs are legible to the 
highly perceptive soul is visible in children, who cannot 
endure the deceitful, the tell-tale, or the revengeful; but 
run with open arms to the benevolent stranger. 

“ We may properly divide our remarks on this subject 
into complexion, lines, and pantomime. That white, 
generally speaking, is cheerful, and black gloomy and 
terrific, is the consequence of our love of light, whicl 
acts so degenerately, as it were, upon some animals, thai 
they wiU throw themselves into the fire; and of our 
abhorrence of darkness. The reason of this our love of 
light is, that it makes us acquainted with things, provides 
for the soul hungry after knowledge, and enables us to 
find what is necessary, and avoid what is dangerous. 1 




EXTKACTS FKOM A MANUSCRIPT. 


201 


only mention this to intimate, that this onr love of 
light originates in onr inclination for every thing that is 
perspicuous. Certain colours are, to certain animals, 
particularly agreeable or disagreeable.” 

What is the reason of this ? Because they are the 
expression of something which has a relation to their 
character, that harmonizes with it or is discordant. 
Colours are the effect of certain qualities of object and 
subject; they are therefore characteristic in each, and 
become more so by the manner in which they are mu¬ 
tually received and repelled. This would be another 
immense field of inquiry, another ray of the sun of 
truth. All is physiognomy 1 

Our dislike is no less for every thing which is 
clothed in dark colours ; and nature ha^ warned animals, 
not only against feeding on earth, but also on dark-green 
plants; for the one is as detrimental as the other. Thus 
the man of a dark complexion terrifies an infant that is 
incapable of judging of his character. 

So strikingly significant are the members of the 
body, that the aspect of the whole attacks our feelings, 
and induces judgments as sudden as they are just. 
Thus, to mention two extremes, all will acknowledge at 
the first aspect the elephant to be the wisest, and the 
fish the most stupid of creatures. 

“ The upper part of the countenance, to the root of 
the nose, is the seat of internal labour, thought, and re¬ 
solution ; the under, of these in action. Animals with 
very retreating foreheads have little brain, and the reverse. 

“ Projecting nose and mouth betoken persuasion, self- 
confidence, rashness, shamelessness, want of thought, 
dishonesty, and all such feelings as are assembled in 
hasty expression.” 


202 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


This is a decision after the manner of the old physio¬ 
gnomists, condemning and indefinite. 

“ The nose is the seat of derision; its wrinkles con¬ 
temn. The upper lip, when projecting, speaks arrogance, 
threats, and want of shame; the parting under lip, 
ostentation and foUy. These signs are confirmed by the 
manner and attitude of the head when drawn back, 
tossed, or turned round. The first expresses contempt, 
during which the nose is active ; the latter is a proof of 
extreme arrogance, during which the projection of the 
under lip is the strongest. 

^^The in-drawn lower parts of the countenance, on 
the contrary, denote discretion, modesty, seriousness, 
diffidence, and its failings are those of malice and 
obstinacy.” 

Not so positive. The projecting chin is much oftener 
the sign of craft than the retreating. The latter is 
seldom scheming and enterprising. 

“ The straight formation of the nose betokens gravity; 
inbent and crooked, noble thoughts. The flat, pouting 
upper lip, when it does not close well with the under, 
signifies timidity; the lips resembling each other, cir¬ 
cumspection of speech.” 

‘^We may divide the face into two principal kinds. 
The first is that in which the cheeks present a flat sur¬ 
face, the nose projecting like a hill, and the mouth has 
the appearance of a sabre wound prolonged on an even 
surface, while the line of the jawbone has but little in¬ 
flection. Such a form makes the countenance more 
broad than long, and exceedingly rude, inexpressive, 
stupid, and in every sense confined. The principal 
characteristics are obstinacy and inflexibility. 

“ The second kind is, when the nose has a sharp ridge. 


EXTRACTS FROM A MANUSCRIPT. 


203 


and tlie parts on both sides make acute angles with each 
other. The cheekbones are not seen, consequently the 
muscular parts between them and the nose are full and 
prominent. The lips retreat oh each side of the mouth, 
assume or open into an oval, and the jawbones come to 
a point at the chin.” 

This face denotes a mind more subtle, active, and 
intelligent. 

“The better to explain myself, I must here employ 
the simile of two ships. The first, a merchant vessel 
built for deep loading, has a broad bottom, and her ribs 
long and flat. This resembles the broad, flat counte¬ 
nance. The frigate, built for swift sailing, has a sharp 
keel or bottom, her ribs forming acute angles. Such is 
the second countenance. Of these two extremes, the 
first presents to me the image of the meanest, most con¬ 
tracted, self-love; the second of the most zealous, the 
noblest philanthropy. 

“ I am sensible that nature does not delight in ex¬ 
tremes. Still the understanding must take its departure 
from these as from a lighthouse, especially when sailing 
in unknown seas. The defects and excesses which are 
in all works of nature will then be discovered, and one 
or both the boundaries ascertained. 

“ If we proceed to a farther examination and appli¬ 
cation of the above hypothesis, it will perhaps extend 
through all nature. A broad countenance*is accom¬ 
panied by a short neck, broad shoulders and back, and 
their known character is selfishness and obtuse sen¬ 
sation. The long small countenance has a long neck, 
small or low shoulders, and small back. Trom such I 
should expect more justice, disinterestedness, and a 
general superiority of social feelings. 


204 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


‘"The features and character of men are essentially- 
altered by education, situation, intercourse, and inci¬ 
dents; therefore we are justified in maintaining, that 
physiognomy cannot look hack to the origin of the 
features, nor presage the changes of futurity; but from 
the countenance only, abstracted from all external acci¬ 
dents by which it may be affected, it may read what any 
given man may he, with the following addition at most : 
rf. such shall he the empire of reason, or such the power of 
sensuality. This man is too stubborn to he instructed: 
that so flexible, he may he led to good or ill. 

“From this formation we may in part explain why 
so many men appear to he horn for certain situations, 
although they may have rather been placed in them by 
accident than by choice. Why the prince, the nobleman, 
the overseer of the poor, have a lordly, a stern, or a pe¬ 
dantic manner; why the subject, the servant, the slave, 
are pusillanimous and spiritless; or the courtesan affect¬ 
ed, constrained, or insipid. The constant influence of 
circumstances on the mind far exceeds the influence of 
nature.” Far the contrary. 

Although it is certain that innate servility is very 
distinct from the servility of one whom misfortune has 
rendered a servant; like as he whom chance has made 
a ruler pver his brother, is very different from one who 
is by nature superior to vulgar souls.” 

There iS^o such thing as inTiate servility. It is true 
that, under certain circumstances, some are much more 
disposed than others to become servile. 

The unfeeling u^d of the slave has vacuity more 
complete, or, if a master, more self-complacency and 
arrogance, in the open mouth, the projecting lip, and 
the turned-up nose. The noble mind rules by the com- 


EXTRACTS FROM A MANUSCRIPT. 


205 


pretensive aspect, while in the closed lips moderation 
is expressed. He will serve with snllenness, with down¬ 
cast eye, and his shut mouth will disdain to complain. 

“ These causes will undoubtedly make durable 
impressions, so will the adventitious occasion transitory 
ones, while their power remains. The latter are more 
apparent than the signs of the countenance at rest, but 
may he well defined by the principal characteristics of 
the agitated features; and, by comparison with counte¬ 
nances subject to similar agitations, the nature of the 
mind may be fuUy displayed. Anger in the unreason¬ 
able, ridiculously struggles; in the self-conceited, it is 
fearful rage; in the noble-minded it yields, and brings 
opponents to shame; in the benevolent, it has a mix¬ 
ture of compassion for the offender, moving him to 
repentance. 

“The affliction of the ignorant is outrageous, and of 
the vain ridiculous; of the compassionate, abundance in 
tears and communicative; of the resolute serious, internal, 
the muscles of the cheeks scarcely drawn upwards, the 
forehead little wrinkled. 

“ Violent and eager is the love of the ignorant; of the 
vain, disgusting, which is seen in the sparkling eyes, and 
the forced smile of the forked cheeks, and the indrawn 
mouth; of the tender, languishing, with the mouth con¬ 
tracted to. entreat; of the man of sense, serious, stead¬ 
fastly surveying the object, the forehead opejp, j^d the 
mouth prepared to plead. ^ 

“ On the whole, the sensations of a man of fortitude 
are restrained, while those of the jgnorant degenerate 
into grimace. The latter, therefore, are not, the proper 
study of the artist, though they are of the physiogno¬ 
mist and the moral teacher, that youth may be warned 


206 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


against too strong an expression of the emotions of the 
mind, and of their ridiculous effects. 

In this manner do the communicative and moving 
sensations of the benevolent inspire reverence; but those 
of the vicious, fear, hatred, or contempt. 

“The repetition of passions engraves their signs so 
deeply, that they resemble the original stamp of nature. 
Hence certainly may be deduced, that the mind is 
addicted to such passions. Thus are poetry and the 
dramatic art highly beneficial, and thus may be seen 
the advantage of conducting youth to scenes of misery 
and of death. 

“ Such a similarity is formed by frequent intercourse 
between men, that they not only assume a mental 
likeness, but frequently contract some resemblance of 
voice and features. Of this I know several examples. 

“Each man has his favourite gesture, which might 
decipher his whole character, might he be observed with 
sufidcient accuracy to be drawn in that precise posture. 
The collection of such portraits would be excellent for 
the first studies of the physiognomist, and increase the 
utility of the fragments of Lavater tenfold. 

“A series of drawings of the motions peculiar to 
individuals, would be of equal utility. The number of 
them in lively men is great, and they are transitory. lu 
the more sedate, they are less numerous and more grave. 

“As, a^ collection of idealized individuals would 
promote an extensive knowledge of various kinds of 
men, so would a collection of the motions of a single 
countenance promote a history of the human heart, and 
demonstrate what an arrogant, yet pusillanimous thing 
the unformed heart is, and the perfection it is capable of 
from the efforts of reason and experience. 


EXTRACTS FROM A MANUSCRIPT. 


207 


would be an excellent school for youth to see 
Christ teaching in the Temple, asking, Whom seek you ? 
agonizing in the Garden, expiring on the Cross. Ever 
the same God-man! Ever displaying, in these various 
situations, the same miraculous mind, the same steadfast 
reason, the same gentle benevolence. Caesar jesting 
with the pirates when their prisoner, weeping over the 
head of Pompey, sinking beneath his assassins, and 
casting an expiring look of affliction and reproach while 
he exclaims, Et tu, Brute ^ Belshazzar, feasting with 
his nobles, turning pale at the handwriting on the wall. 
The tyrant enraged, butchering his slaves, and surrounded 
by condemned wretches entreating mercy from the 
uplifted sword. 

“ Sensation having a relative influence on the voice, 
must not there be one principal tone or key by which 
all the others are governed; and wiU not this be the key 
in which he speaks when unimpassioned, like as the 
countenance at rest contains the propensities to all such 
traits as it is capable of receiving ? These keys of voice* 
a good musician with a fine ear should collect, class,' 
and learn to define, so that he might place the key of 
the voice beside any given countenance, making proper 
allowances for changes occasioned by the form of the 
lungs, exclusive of disease. Tail people, with a flatness 
of breast, have weak voices. 

“This idea, which is more difficult to execute than 
conceive, was inspired by the various tones in which I 
have heard yes and no pronounced. The various 
emotions under which these words are uttered, whether 
of assurance, decision, joy, grief, ridicule, or laughter, 
will give birth to tones as various. Yet each man has 
his peculiar manner, respondent to his character, of 


208 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


saying yeSy no, or any other word. It wiU be open, 
hesitating, grave, trifling, sympathizing, cold, peevish, 
mild, fearless, or timid. What a guide for the man of 
the world, and how do such tones display or betray the 
mind! 

Since we are taught by experience, that at certain 
times the man of understanding appears foolish, the 
courageous cowardly, the benevolent perverse, and the 
cheerful discontented, we might, by the assistance of 
these accidental traits, draw an idea of each motion; 
and this would be a most valuable addition, and an 
important step in the progress of physiognomy.” 


CHAPTEE XXXIX. 

Extracts from Nicolai and Winkelmann. 

Extracts from Nicolai. 

1 . 

“The distorted or disfigured form may originate as 
well from external as from internal causes; but the 
consistency of the whole is the consequence of con¬ 
formity between internal and external causes; for which 
reason moral goodness is much more visible in the 
countenance than moral evil.” 

This is true, those moments excepted when moral 
evil is in act. 


2 . 

“The end of physiognomy ought to be, not con¬ 
jectures on individual, "but the discovery of general 
character.” 



EXTRACTS FROM NICOLAI. 


209 

The meaning of which is, the discovery of general 
signs of powers and sensations, which certainly are 
useless unless they can be individually applied, since 
our intercourse is with individuals. 

3 . 

“It would be of great utility to physiognomy were 
numerous portraits of the same man annually drawn, 
and the original by that means weU known.” 

It is possible, and perhaps only possible, to procure 
accurate shades or plaster casts. Minute changes are 
seldom accurately enough attended to by the painter,, 
for the purpose of physiognomy. 

4 . 

“ The most important pursuit of the physiognomist in 
his researches will ever be, in what manner is a man 
considered capable of the impressions of sense ? Through 
what kind of perspective ^ dees he view the world ? 
What can he give ? What receive ? 

5 . 

“ That very vivacity of imagination, that quickness of 
conception, without which no man can be a physiogno¬ 
mist, is probably almost inseparable from other qualities, 
which render the highest caution necessary if the result 
Df his observations is to be applied to living persons.” 

This I readily grant; but the danger will be much 
less if he endeavour to employ his quick sensations in 
determinate signs; if he be able to portray the general 
tokens of certain powers, sensations, and passions, and 
if his rapid imagination be only busied to discover and 
draw resemblances. 

P 


210 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Extracts from WinkelTnann. 

1 . 

The characteristic of truth is internal sensation, and 
the designer who would present such natural sensation 
to his academy, would not obtain a shade of the true, 
without a peculiar addition of something, which an 
ordinary and unimpassioned mind cannot read in any 
model, being ignorant of the action peculiar to each 
sensation and passion. 

“ The physiognomist is formed by internal sensation, 
which, if the designer be not, he will give but the 
shadow, and only an indefinite and confused shadow, of 
the true character of nature.” 

2 . 

“ The forehead and nose of the Greek gods and god¬ 
desses form almost a straight line. The heads of famous 
women on Greek coins have similar profiles, where the 
fancy might not be indulged in ideal beauties. Hence 
we may conjecture that this form was as common to the 
ancient Greeks as the fiat nose to the Calmuc, or the 
small eye to the Chinese. The large eyes of Grecian 
heads in gems and coins support this conjecture.” 

This ought not to be absolutely general, and probably 
was not, since numerous medals show the contrary, 
though in certain ages and countries such might have 
been the most common form. Had only one such 
countenance, however, presented itself to the genius ol 
art, it would have been sufficient for its propagation and 
continuance. This is less our concern than the signi-. 
fication of such a form. The nearer the approach to the 


EXTRACTS FROM WINKELMANN. 


211 


perpendicular, the less is there characteristic of thej;v^ise 
and graceful; and the higher the character of worth 
and greatness, the more obliquely the lines retreat. 
The more straight and perpendicular the profile of the 
forehead and nose is, the more does the profile of the 
upper part of the head approach a right angle, from 
which wisdom and beauty will fly with equally rapid 
steps. In the usual copies of these famous ancient lines 
of beauty, I generally find the expression of meanness, 
and, if I dare say, of vague insipidity. I repeat, in the 
copies; in the Sophonisba of Angelica Kauiffman, for 
instance, where probably the shading under the hair has 
been neglected, and where the gentle arching of the line 
apparently were scarcely attainable. 

3 . 

“The line which separates the repletion from the 
excess of nature, is very small.” 

Not to be measured by industry or instrument, yet 
aU powerful, as every thing unattainable is. 

4 . 

“ A mind as beautiful as was that of Kaphael, in an 
equally beautiful body, is necessary, first to feel, and 
afterwards to display, in these modern times, the true 
character of the ancients. 


5 . 

“ Constraint is unnatural, and violence disorder.” 
Where constraint is remarked, there let secret, pro¬ 
found, slowly destructive passion be feared; where 
violence, there open and quick destroying. 


212 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


6 . 

“Greatness will be expressed by the straight and 
replete, and tenderness by the gently curving.” 

All greatness has something of straight and replete; 
but aU the straight and replete is not greatness. The 
straight and replete must be in a certain position, and 
must have a determinate relation to the horizontal, on 
which the observer stands to view it. 

“ It may be proved that no principle of beauty exists 
in this profile; for the stronger the arching of the nose 
is, the less does it contain of the beautiful; and if any 
countenance seen in profile is bad, any search after 
beauty will there be to no purpose.” 

The noblest, purest, wisest, most spiritual and benevo¬ 
lent countenance, may be beautiful to the physiognomist, 
who, in the extended sense of the word beauty, under¬ 
stands all moral expressions of good as beautiful; yet 
the form may not therefore, accurately speaking, deserve 
the appellation of beautiful. 

7 . 

“Nothing is more difficult than to demonstrate a 
self-evident truth.” 


CHAPTER XL 

Eoctracts from Aristotle and other Authors concerning 
Beasts. 

The writings of the great Aristotle on physiognomy 
appear to me very superficial, useless, and often self¬ 
contradictory, especially his general reasoning. Still, 



EXTRACTS FROM ARISTOTLE, ETC. 


213 


however, we sometimes meet an occasional thought 
which deserves to be selected. The following are some 
of these:— 

"A monster has never been seen which had the form of 
another creature, and, at the same time, totally different 
powers of thinking and acting. Thus, for example, the 
groom judges from the mere appearance of the horse; 
the huntsman, from the appearance of the hound. We 
find no man entirely like a beast, although there are 
some features in man which remind us of beasts. 

Those who would endeavour to discover the signs of 
bravery in man, would act wisely to collect all the signs 
of bravery in animated nature, by which courageous 
animals are distinguished from others. The physiogno¬ 
mist should then examine all such animated beings, 
which are the reverse of the former with respect to 
internal character, and, from the comparison of these 
opposites, the expressions or signs of courage would be 
manifest. 

As weak hair is a mark of fear, so is strong hair of 
courage. This observation is applicable not only to men 
but to beasts. The most fearful of beasts are the deer, 
the hare, and the sheep, and the hair of these is weaker 
than that of other beasts. The lion and wild-boar, on 
the contrary, are the most courageous, which property 
is conspicuous in their extremely strong hair. The same 
also may be remarked of birds; for, in general, those 
among them which have coarse feathers are courageous, 
and those that have soft and weak feathers are fearful. 

“ This may easily be applied to men. The people of 
the north are generally courageous, and have strong 
hair; while those of the west are more fearful, and have 
more flexible hair. 


214 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


"'Sucli beasts as are remarkable for tbeir courage 
simply give tbeir voices vent, without any great con¬ 
straint, while fearful beasts utter vehement sounds. 
Compare the lion, ox, the barking dog, and cock, which 
are courageous, to the deer and the hare. The lion 
appears to have a more masculine character than any 
other beast. He has a large mouth, a four-cornered not 
too bony visage. The upper-jaw does not project, but 
exactly fits the under; the nose is rather hard than soft, 
the eyes are neither sunken nor prominent, the forehead 
is square, and sometimes fiattened in the middle. 

“ Those who have thick and firm lips, with the upper 
hung over the under, are simple persons, according to 
the analogy of the ape and monkey.” 

This is most indeterminately spoken. He would have 
been much more true and accurate had he said, those 
whose under-lips are weak, extegided, and projecting 
beyond the upper, are simple people. 

" Those who have the tip of the nose hard and firm, 
love to employ themselves on subjects that give them 
little trouble, similar to the cow and the ox.” 

Insupportable! The few men, who have the tip of 
the nose firm, are the most unwearied in their researches. 
I shall transcribe no farther. His physiognomical re¬ 
marks, and his similarities to beasts, are generally 
imfounded in experience. 

Porta, next to Aristotle, has most observed the re¬ 
semblance between the countenances of men and beasts, 
and has extended this inquiry the farthest. He, as far 
as I know, was the first to render this similarity apparent, 
by placing the countenances of men and beasts beside 
each other. Nothing can be more true than this fact; 
and, while we continue to follow nature, and do not 


EXTRACTS FROM ARISTOTLE, ETC. 


215 


endeavour to make such similarities greater than they 
are, it is a subject that cannot be too accurately exa¬ 
mined. But in this respect the fanciful Porta appears 
to me to have been often misled, and to have found 
resemblances which the eye of truth never could dis¬ 
cover. I could find no resemblance between the hound 
and Plato, at least from which cool reason could draw 
any conclusions. It is singular enough that he has also 
compared the heads of men and birds. He might more 
effectually have examined the excessive dissimilarity 
than the very* small and almost imperceptible resem¬ 
blance which can exist. He speaks little concerning 
the horse, elephant, and monkey, though it is certain 
that these animals have most resemblance to man. 

A generic difference between man and beast is par¬ 
ticularly conspicuous in the structure of the bones. 
The head of man is placed erect on the spinal bone. 
His whole form is as the foundation pillar for that arch 
in which heaven should be reflected, supporting that 
skull by which, like the firmament, it is encircled. 
This cavity for the brain constitutes the greater part of 
the head. All our sensations, as I may say, ascend 
and descend above the jawbone, and collect themselves 
upon the lips. How does the eye, that most eloquent of 
organs, stand in need, if not of words, at least of the 
angry constraint of the cheeks, and aU the intervening 
shades, to express the strong internal sensation of man. 

The formation of beasts is directly the reverse of this. 
The head is only attached to the spine. The brain, the 
extremity of the spinal marrow, has no greater extent 
than is necessary for animal life, and the conducting of 
a creature wholly sensual, and formed but for temporary 
existence. For although we cannot deny that beasts 


216 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


have the faculty of memory, and act from reflection ; yet' 
the former, as I may say, is the effect of primary sensa¬ 
tion, and the latter originates in the constraint of the 
moment, and the preponderance of this or that object. 

We may perceive in the most convincing manner, in 
the difference of the skull, which defines the character 
of animals, how the bones determine the form, and 
denote the properties of the creature. 

As the character of animals are distinct, so are their 
forms, bones, and outlines. From the smallest winged 
insect to the eagle that soars and gazes at the sun; from 
the weakest worm impotently crawling beneath our feet, 
to the elephant or the majestic lion, the gradations of 
physiognomical expression cannot be mistaken. It 
would be more than ridiculous to expect from the worm, 
the butterfly, and the lamb, the power of the rattlesnake, 
the eagle, and the lion. Were the lion and lamb, for the 
first time, placed before us, had we never known such 
animals, never heard their names, still we could not 
resist the impression of the courage and strength of the 
one, or of the weakness and sufferance of the other. 

Let me ask the question. Which are, in general, the 
weakest • animals, and the most remote from humanity, 
the most incapable of human ideas and sensations ? 
Beyond all doubt, those which in their form least 
resemble man. To prove this, let us, in imagination, 
consider the various degrees of animal life, from the 
smallest animalcule to the ape, lion, and elephant; and, 
the more to simplify and give facility to such compari¬ 
son, let us only compare head to head; as, for example, 
the lobster to the elephant, the elephant to the man. 

Permit me here just to observe, how worthy would 
such a work be of the united abilities of a Buffon, a 


217 


EXTRACTS FROM ARISTOTLE, ETC. 

Kamper, and a Euler, could they be found united, that 
the forms of heads might be enumerated and described 
philosophically and mathematically; that it might be 
demonstrated that universal brutality, in all its various 
kinds, is circumscribed by a determinate line; and that, 
among the innumerable lines of brutality, there is not 
one which is not internally and essentially different from 
the line of humanity, which is peculiar and unique. 

Thoughts of a Friend on Brutal and Human 
Physiognomy. 

Every brute animal is distinguished from all others 
by some principal quality. As the make of each is 
distinct from all others, so also is the character. This 
principal character is denoted by a peculiar and visible 
form. Each species of beast has certainly a peculiar 
character, as it has a peculiar form. May we not hence 
by analogy infer, that predominant qualities of the 
mind are certainly expressed by predominant forms of 
the body, as that the peculiar qualities of a species are 
expressed in the general form of that species ? 

“The principal character of the species in animals, 
remain such as it was given by nature; it neither can 
be obscured by accessory qualities, nor concealed by 
art. The essential of the character can as little be 
changed as the peculiarity of the form. May we not 
therefore, with the greatest degree of certainty, affirm 
such a form is only expressive of such a character ? 

“Let us now inquire whether this be applicable to 
man, and whether the form, which denotes individual 
character in a beast, is significant of similar character 
in man, granting that in man it may continually be 
more delicate, hidden, and complicated. If. on exami- 


218 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


nation, this question be definitely answered in the 
affirmative, how much is thereby gained ! But it is 
conspicuously evident that in man the mind is not one 
character or quality, but a world of qualities interwoven 
with and obscuring each other. If each quality be ex¬ 
pressed by its peculiar from, then must variety of 
qualities be attended with variety of forms; and these 
forms, combining and harmonizing together, must be¬ 
come more difficult to select and decipher. 

“ May not souls differ from each other merely accord¬ 
ing to their relative connection with bodies ? May not 
souls also have a determinate capacity, proportionate to 
the form and organization of the body? Hence, each 
object may make a different impression on each 
individual; hence one may bear greater burthens and 
more misfortunes than another. May not the body be 
considered as a vessel with various compartments, 
cavities, pipes, into which the soul is poured, and, in 
consequence of which, motion and sensation begin to 
act ? And thus may not the form of the body 
define the capacity of the mind ? ” 

My unknown friend, thus far have I followed you. 
Figurative language is dangerous when discoursing on 
the soul; yet how can we discourse on it otherwise? 
I pronounce no judgment, but rely on sensation and 
experience, not on words and metaphors. What is is, 
be your language what it will. Whether effects all act 
from the external to the internal, or the reverse, I know 
not, cannot, need not know. Experience convinces us 
that, both in man and beast, power and form are un¬ 
changeable, harmonized proportion; but whether the form 
be determined by the power, or the power by the form, 
is a question wholly insignificant to the physiognomist. 


EXTRACTS FROM ARISTOTLE, ETC. 


219 


Observations on some Animals, and particularly of the 
Horse. 

The dog has more forehead above the eyes than most 
other beasts ; but as much as he appears to gain in the 
forehead he loses in the excess of brutal nose, which has 
every token of acute scent. Man too, in the act of 
smelling, elevates the nostrils. The dog is also defective 
in the distance of the mouth from the nose, and in the 
meanness or rather nullity of the chm. 

Whether the hanging ears of a dog are characteristic 
of slavish subjection, as Buffon has affirmed, who has 
written much more reasonably on brute than on human 
physiognomy, I cannot determine to my own satisfaction. 

The camel and the dromedary are a mixture of the 
horse, sheep, and ass, without what is noble in the first. 
They also appear to have something of the monkey, at 
least in the nose. Not made to suffer the bit in the 
mouth, the power of jaw is wanting. The determining 
marks concerning the bit are found between the eyes 
and the nose. No traces of courage or daring are found 
in these parts. The threatening snort of the ox and 
horse is not perceptible in these ape-like nostrils; none 
of the powers of plunder and prey in the feeble upper 
and under jaw. Nothing but burthen-bearing patience 
in the eyes. 

Wild cruelty, the menacing power of rending, appear 
in the bear, abhorring man, the friend of ancient savage 
nature. 

The most indolent, helpless, wretched creature, and of 
the most imperfect formation, is the eunau ai, or sloth. 
How extraordinary is the feebleness of the outline of the 
head, body, and feet! no sole of the feet, no toes small 


220 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


or great, which move independently, having but two or 
three long inhent claws, which can only move together. 
Its sluggishness, stupidity, and self-neglect are inde¬ 
scribable. 

In the wild-boar every one may read ferocity, a want 
of all that is noble, greediness, stupidity, blunt feeling, 
gross appetite; and in the badger, ignoble, faithless, 
malignant, savage gluttony. 

Eemarkable is the profile of the lion, especially the 
outline of the forehead and nose. A man whose profile 
of forehead and nose should resemble that of the lion, 
would certainly be no common man; but such I have 
never seen. I own, the nose of the lion is much less 
prominent than that of man, but much more than that; 
of any other quadruped. Eoyal, brutal strength, and 
arrogant usurpation, are evident; partly in the arching 
of the nose, partly in its breadth and parallel lines, and 
especially in the almost right angle, which the outlines 
of the eyelid forms with the side of the nose. 

In the eye and snout of the tiger, what bloodthirsty 
cruelty, what insidious craft! Can the laugh of Satan 
himself, at a fallen saint, be more fiend-like than the 
head of the triumphant tiger ? Cats are tigers in minia¬ 
ture, with the advantage of domestic education. Little 
better in character, inferior in power. Unmerciful to 
birds and mice, as the tiger to the lamb. They delight 
in prolonging torture before they devour, and in this 
they exceed the tiger. 

The more violent qualities of the elephant are dis¬ 
coverable in the number and size of his bones; his 
intelligence in the roundness of his form, and his docility 
in the massiness of his muscles; his art and discretion 
in the flexibility of his trunlc; his retentive memory in 




EXTRACTS FROM ARISTOTLE, ETC. 221 

the size and arching of his forehead, which approaches 
nearer to the outline of the human forehead than that of 
any other beast. Yet how essentially different is it from 
the human forehead, in the position of the eye and 
mouth, since the latter generally makes nearly a right 
angle with the axis of the eye and the middle line of 
the mouth. 

The crocodile proves how very physiognomical teeth 
are. This, like other creatures, but more visibly and in¬ 
fallibly than others, in all its parts, outlines, and points, 
has- physiognomy that cannot be mistaken. Thus de¬ 
based, thus despicable, thus knotty, obstinate, and wicked, 
thus sunken below the noble horse, terrific, and void of 
all love and affection, is this fiend incarnate. 

Little acquainted as I am with horses, yet it seems to 
me indubitable, that there is as great a difference in the 
physiognomy of horses as in that of men. The horse 
deserves to be particularly considered by the physio¬ 
gnomist, because it is one of those animals whose physio¬ 
gnomy, at least in profile, is so much more prominent, 
sharp, and characteristic than that of most other beasts. 

Of all animals the horse is that which, to largeness of 
size, unites most proportion and elegance in the parts of 
his body; for, comparing him to those which are imme¬ 
diately above or below him, we shall perceive that the 
ass is ill made, the head of the lion is too large, the legs 
of the ox too small, the camel is deformed, and the 
rhinoceros and elephant too unwieldy. There is scarcely 
any beast has so various, so generally marking, so speak¬ 
ing a countenance, as a beautiful horse. 

“ The upper part of the neck from which the mane 
flows, in a well-made horse, ought to rise at first in a 
right line; and, as it approaches the head, to form, a 


222 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


curve somewhat similar to the neck of the swan. The 
lower part of the neck ought to he rectilinear in its 
direction from the chest to the nether jaw, hut a little 
inclined forward; for, were it perpendicular, the shape 
of the neck would he defective. The upper part of the 
neck should be thin and not fleshy; nor the mane, 
which ought to he tolerably full, and the hair long and 
straight. A flue neck ought to be long and elevated, 
yet proportionate to the size of the horse. If too long 
and small, the horse would strike the rider with his 
head; if too short and heavy, he would bear heavy on 
the hand. The head is advantageously placed when the 
forehead is perpendicular to the horizon. The head 
ought to be bony and small, not too long; the ears near 
each other, small, erect, firm, straight, free, and situated 
on the top of the head. The forehead should be narrow 
and somewhat convex, the hollows filled up ; the eyelids 
thin; the eyes clear, penetrating, full of ardour, tolerably 
large as I may say, and projecting from the head, the 
pupil large, the under jaw bony, and rather thick; the 
nose somewhat arched, the nostrils open and well slit, 
the partition thin; the lips fine, the mouth tolerably 
large, the withers high and sharp.” I must beg pardon 
for this quotation from the Encyclopidie, and for insert¬ 
ing thus much of the description of a beautiful horse, in 
a physiognomical essay intended to promote the know¬ 
ledge and the love of man. 

The more accurately we observe horses, the more shall 
we be convinced that a separate treatise of physiognomy 
might be written on them. I have somewhere heard a 
general remark, that horses are divided into three 
classes, the swan-necked, the stag-necked, and the hog¬ 
necked. Each of these classes has its peculiar counte- 




EXTRACTS FROM ARISTOTLE, ETC. 223 

nance and character, and from the blending of which 
various others originate. 

The heads of the swan-necked horses are commonly 
even, the forehead small, and almost flat; the nose 
extends, arching, from the eyes to the mouth; the 
nostrils are wide and open; the mouth small; the ears 
little, pointed, and projecting; the eyes large and round; 
the jaw below small; above, something broader; the 
whole body well proportioned, and the horse beautiful. 
This kind is cheerful, tractable, and high-spirited. They 
are very sensible of pain, which when dressing they 
sometimes express by the voice. Flattery greatly excites 
their joy, and they will express their pride of heart by 
parading and prancing. I will venture to assert that a 
man with a swan-neck, or, what is much more deter¬ 
minate, with a smooth projecting profile, and flaxen 
hair, would have similar sensibilify and pride. 

The stag-necked has something, in the make of his 
body, much resembling the stag itself. The neck is 
small, large, and scarcely bowed in the middle. He 
carries his head high. I have seen none of these. They 
are racers and hunters, being particularly adapted for 
swiftness by the make of the body. 

The hog-necked. The neck above and below is alike 
broad; the head hanging downwards; the middle of 
the nose is concave in profile; the ears are long, thick, 
and hanging; the eyes small and ugly; the nostrils 
small, the mouth large, the whole body round, and the 
coat long and rough. These horses are intractable, slow, 
and vicious, and will run the rider against a wall, stone, or 
tree. When held in they rear, and endeavour to throw 
the rider. Blows or coaxing are frequently alike ineffec¬ 
tual ; they continue obstinate and restive. 


224 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


If we examine the different heads of horses, we shall 
find that all cheerful, high-spirited, capricious, courageous 
horses, have the nosebone of the profile convex; and 
that most of the vicious, restive, and idle, have the same 
bone flat or concave. In the eyes, mouth, and especially 
in the nostrils and jawbones, are remarkable varieties, 
concerning which I shall say nothing. I shall here add 
some ’remarks on the horse, communicated by a friend. 

The grey is the tenderest of horses, and we may here 
add that people with light hair, if not effeminate, are 
yet, it is well known, of tender formation and constitu¬ 
tion. The chestnut and iron grey, the black and bay, are 
hardy; the sorrel are the most hardy, and yet the most 
subject to disease. The sorrel, whether well or iU 
formed, is treacherous. All treacherous horses lay their 
ears on their neck. They stare and stop, and lay down 
their ears alternately. 

The following passage, on the same subject, is cited 
from another writer: " V/hen a horse has broad, long, 
widely separated, hanging ears, we are well assured he 
is bad and sluggish. If he lays down his ears alternately, 
he is fearful, and apt to start. Thin, pointed, and pro¬ 
jecting ears, on the contrary, denote a horse of good 
disposition.” 

We never find that the thick, hog-necked horse is 
sufficiently tractable for the riding-house, or that he is 
of a strong nature when the tail shakes like the tail of 
a dog. We may be certain that a horse with large 
cheerful eyes, and a fine shining coat, if we have no other 
tokens, is of a good constitution and understanding. 

These remarks are equally applicable to oxen and 
sheep, and probably to all other animals. The white ox 
is not so long serviceable for draught or labour as the 


OF BIRDS, ETC. 


225 


black or red; he is more weak and silly than these. A 
sheep with short legs, strong neck, broad back, and cheer¬ 
ful eyes, is a good breeder, and remains peaceably with 
the flock. I am clearly of opinion that, if we may judge 
of the internal by the external of beasts, men may be 
judged of in the same manner. 


CHAPTEE XLI. 

Of Birds, Fishes, Serpents, and Insects. 

BIRDS. 

Birds, whether compared to each other, or to other 
creatures, have their distinct characters. The structure 
of birds throughout is lighter than that of quadrupeds. 
Nature, ever steadfast to truth, thus manifests herself in 
the form of birds. Their necks are more pliant, their 
heads smaller, their mouths more pointed, and their garb 
more light and strong, than those of quadrupeds. 

Their distinction of character, or gradation of passive 
and active power, is expressed by the following physio¬ 
gnomical varieties. 

1. By the form of the skull. The more flat the skull 
the more weak, flexible, tender, and sensible is the 
character of the animal. This flatness contains less, 
and resists less. 

2. By the length, breadth, and arching, or obliquity 
of their beaks. And here again we find, when there is 
arching, there is a greater extent of docihty and capacity. 

' 3. By the eyes, which appear to have an exact cor- 
'respondence with the arching of the beak. 

4. Particularly by the middle line, I cannot say of 
the mouth, but what is analogous to the mouth, the 



22G lavater’s physiognomy. 

beak; tbe obliquity of which is ever in a remarkable 
proportion with the outline of the profile of the head. 

"^0 can behold the eagle hovering in the air, the 
powerful lord of so many creatures, without perceiving 
the seal, the native star of royalty, in his piercing ^pund 
eye, the form of his head, his strong wings, his talons of 
brass, and in his whole form his victorious strength, his 
contemptuous arrogance, his fearful cruelty, and his 
ravenous propensity ? 

Consider the eyes of all living creatures, from the 
eagle to the mole; where else can be found that light¬ 
ning glance which defies the rays of the sun ?—where 
that capacity for the reception of light? How truly, 
how emphatically, to all who will hear and understand, 
is the majesty of his kingly character visible, not alone 
in his burning eye, but in the outline of what is ana¬ 
logous to the eyehone, and in the skin of the head, 
where anger and courage are seated ? But throughout 
his whole form where are they not ? 

Compare the vulture with the eagle, and who does 
not observe in his lengthened neck and beak, and in his 
more extended form, less power and nobility than in the 
eagle ? In the head of the owl, the ignoble greedy prey; 
in the dove, mild, humble timidity; and in the swan, 
more nobility than in the goose, with less power than 
in the eagle, and tenderness than in the dove; more 
pliability than in the ostrich; and, in the wUd-duck, 
a more savage animal than in the swan, without the 
force of the eagle ? 


Fish. 

How different is the profile of a fish from that of a 
man ?—how much the reverse of human perpendicu- 


OF FISH. 


227 


larity! How little is there of countenance when com¬ 
pared to the lion! How visible is the want of mind, 
reflection, and cunning ! What little or no analogy to 
forehead ! What an impossibility of covering or entirely 
closyig the eyes! The eye itself is merely circular and 
prominent, has nothing of the lengthened form of the 
eye of the fox or elephant. 

Serpents. 

I will allow physiognomy, when applied to man, to 
be a false science, if any being throughout nature can 
be discovered void of physiognomy, or a countenance 
which does not express its character. What has less, 
yet more, physiognomy than the serpent ? May we not 
perceive in it tokens of cunning and treachery ? Cer¬ 
tainly not a trace of understanding or deliberate plan. 
No memory, no comprehension, but the most unbounded 
craft and falsehood. How are these reprobate qualities 
distinguished in their forms? The very play of their 
colours, and wonderful meandering of their spots, appear 
to announce and to warn us of their deceit. 

All men possessed of real power are upright and 
honest; craft is but the substitute of power. I do not 
here speak of the power contained in the folds of a 
serpent; they all want the power to act immediately, 
without the aid of cunning. They are formed to “ bruise 
the heel, and to have the head bruised.” The judgment 
which God has pronounced against them is written on 
their flat, impotent forehead, mouth, and eyes. 

Insects. 

How inexpressibly various are the characteristics im¬ 
pressed by the eternal Creator on all living beings! 


228 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


How has he stamped on each its legible and peculiar 
properties ! How especially visible is this in the lowest 
classes of animal life ! The world of insects is a world 
of itself. The distance between this and the world ol 
men, I own, is great; yet were it sufficiently known, 
how useful would it be to human physiognomy ! What 
certain proofs of the physiognomy of men must be ob¬ 
tained from insect physiognomy! 

How visible are their powers of destruction, of suffer¬ 
ing and resisting, of sensibility and insensibility, through 
all their forms and gradations ! Are not all the compact, 
hard-winged insects physiognomically and characteris¬ 
tically more capable and retentive than the various light 
and tender species of the butterfly ? Is not the softest 
flesh the weakest, the most suffering, the easiest to de¬ 
stroy ? Are not the insects of least brains the beings 
most removed from man, who has the most brain ? Is 
it not perceptible in each species whether it be warlike, 
defensive, enduring, weak, enjoying, destructive, easy to 
be crushed, or crushing ? How distinct in the external 
character are their degrees of strength, of defence, of 
stinging, or of appetite ! 

The great dragon fly shows its agility and swiftness, 
in the structure of its wings; perpetually on flight in 
search of small flies. How sluggish, on the contrary, is 
the crawling caterpillar! How carefully does he set his 
feet as he ascends a leaf! How yielding his substance, 
incapable of resistance! How peaceable, harmless, and 
indolent is the moth! How full of motion, bravery, and 
hardiness is the industrious ant! How loath to remove 
on the contrary, is the harnessed lady-bird! 


ON SHADES. 


229 


CHAPTEE XLII. 

On Shades. 

Though shades are the weakest and most vapid, yet 
they are at the same time, when the light is at a proper 
distance, and falls properly on the countenance, to take 
the profile accurately, the truest representation that can 
he given of man. The weakest, for it is not positive; it is 
only something negative, only the boundary line of half 
the countenance. The truest, because it is the imme¬ 
diate expression of nature, such as not the ablest painter 
is capable of drawing by hand after nature. What can 
be less the image of a living man than a shade? Yet 
how full of speech ? Little gold, but the purest. 

The shade contains but one line; no motion, light, 
colour, height, or depth; no eye, ear, nostril, or cheek; 
but a very small part of the hp; yet how decisively it 
is significant! Drawing and painting, it is probable, 
originated in shades. They express, as I have said, but 
little; but the little they do express is exact. Xo art 
can attain to the truth of the shade taken with precision. 
Let a shade be taken after nature with the greatest 
accuracy, and with equal accuracy be afterwards reduced 
upon fine transparent oil-paper. Let a profile of the 
same size be taken by the greatest master in his happiest 
moment, then let the two be laid upon each other, and 
the difference will be immediately evident. 

I never found, after repeated experiments, that the 
best efforts of art could equal nature either in freedom 
or in precision, but that there was always something 
more or less than nature. Nature is sharp and free ; 
whoever studies sharpness more than freedom, wiU be 
hard, and whoever studies freedom more than sharpness 


230 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


will become dififuse and indeterminate. I can admire 
him only who, equally studious of her sharpness and 
freedom, acquires equal certainty and impartiality. 

To attain this, artist, imitator of humanity! first ex¬ 
ercise yourself in drawing shades; afterwards copy 
them by hand, and next compare and correct. Without 
this you will with difficulty discover the grand secret of 
uniting precision and freedom. 

I have collected more physiognomical knowledge from 
shades alone than fiom every other kind of portrait; 
have improved physiognomical sensation more by the 
sight of them than by the contemplation of ever mutable 
nature. Shades collect the distracted attention, confine 
it to an outline, and thus render the observation more 
simple, easy, and precise. Physiognomy has no greater, 
more incontrovertible certainty of the truth of its object, 
than that imparted by shade. If the shade, according 
to the general sense and decision of all men, can decide 
so much concerning character, how much more must the 
living body, the whole appearance, and action of the 
man! If the shade be oracular, the voice of truth, the 
word of God, what must the living original be, illumi¬ 
nated by the spirit of God! 

Hundreds have asked, and hundreds wiU continue to 
ask, “ What can be expected from mere shades ?” Yet 
no shade can be viewed by any one of these hundred, 
who will not form some judgment on it, often accu¬ 
rately, more accurately than I could have judged. 

In order to make the astonishing significance of 
shades conspicuous, we ought either to compare opposite 
characters of men taken in shade, or, which may be 
more convincing, to cut out of black paper, or draw, 
imaginary countenances widely dissimilar. Or, again, 


ox SHADES. 


231 


when we have acquired some proficiency in observation, 
to double black paper, and cut two countenances; and 
afterwards, by cutting with the scissors, to make slight 
alterations, appealing to our eye, or physiognomical 
feeling, at each alteration; or, lastly, only to take 
various shades of the same countenance, and compare 
them together. Such experiments would astonish us, 
to perceive what great effects are produced^by slight 
alterations. 

The common method of taking shades is accompanied 
with many inconveniences. It is hardly possible the 
person drawn should sit sufficiently still; the designer 
is obliged to change his place; he must approach so 
near to the person that motion is almost inevitable, and 
the designer is in the most inconvenient position; 
neither are the preparatory steps every where possible, 
nor simple enough. A seat purposely contrived would 
be more convenient. The shade should be taken on post 
paper, or rather on thin oil-paper, well dried. Let the 
head and back be supported by a chair, and the shade 
fall on the oil-paper behind a clear, flat, polished glass. 
Let the drawer sit behind the glass, holding the frame 
with his left hand, and, having a sharp black-lead 
pencil, draw with the right. The glass, in a detached 
sliding frame, may be raised or lowered, according to the 
height of the person. The bottom of the glass frame, 
being thin, will be best of iron, and should be raised so 
as to rest steadily upon the shoulder. In the centre, 
upon the glass, should be a small piece of wood or iron, 
to which fasten a small round cushion, supported by a 
short pin, scarcely haK an inch long, which also may be 
raised or lowered, and against which the person drawn 
may lean. 


232 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


CHAPTEE XLIIL 
Description of Flate VI. 

Number I. Mendelssohn. 

In the forehead and nose, penetration and sound un- 
derstandii^ are evident. The mouth is much more deli¬ 
cate than the mouth of 2. 

Number II. J. Spalding. 

Clear ideas, love of elegance, purity, accuracy of 
thought and action; does not easily admit the unnatural. 
The forehead not sufficiently characteristic, hut fine taste 
in the nose. 


Number III. Eochow. 

Has more good sense; prompt, accurate perception of 
truth and delicacy, than 4; but I suspect less acuteness. 

Number TV. P. Nicolai. 

Whoever hesitates concerning the character of this 
head, never can have observed the forehead. This arch, 
abstractedly considered, especially in the upper part, has 
more capacity than Nos. 2 and 3. In the upper outline, 
also, of the under part, understanding and exquisite 
penetration cannot he overlooked. 

Number V. 

One of those masculine profiles which generally please. 
Conceal the under chin, and an approach to greatness is 
perceptible; except that greater variation in the out¬ 
line is wanting, especially in the nose and forehead. 
The choleric phlegmatic man is visible in the whole ; 
especially in the eyebrows, nose, and bottom part of the 





Mcndelssolvn 











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































' • ••■v. , . i-- i 




-■i 


. •♦'•u ''i *.' ’ sf^ 




1 fc 


i 






t _ 

■ *•- - - ■. .iT ' ' fr-<» »i 1 «s^ ''f'''»s^« ^ 

'V - v--- '■! “■ 

‘v '■ V ■• • .V.yl . * “ /■y ■'., 

.-.S^.’'V-v ■ __ -‘.-as v.'.'-i 


r>.i 


1*^- lJ 


'ar-/ 

*' ““i«’ 

■*• ~t ilEi 

■' ', 'I *.« ■ 


,■ I 


M 


- i, 


'i: 


C c 


• I 
. ^ 


- * ' 2 • ■* *.' *. .* 
■ .'J/i 


b 

• # 


jSI , 

V-;. ■’•!/'. fe'-, i. j 

' jsr : 

' ■ ■>*.:.i! 4^ .»‘' >ift) ■ ■ ■'■ ; . 

* '•■ , •■■ I --.^1 V 


\‘:v 


* 


..•? 



= K“V-". '■• ■• 6^.'.. 

Jil!, ‘'-':.5;';---''i': ‘a 'H'r- 

■ ’ \h'‘ '. '• ->'■'' 


W- M. 








A WORD TO TRAVELLERS. 


233 


chin; as lilcewise are integrity, fidelity, goodness, and 
complaisance. 

Number VI. J. C. Lavatee. 

This shade, though imperfect, may easily he known. 
It must pass without comment, or rather the commentary 
is before the world—^is in this book. Let that speak ; 
I am silent. 


CHAPTEE XLIV. 

A Word to Travellers. 

There appear to me to be three things indispensable 
to travellers—^health, money, and physiognomy. There¬ 
fore a physiognomical word to travellers. I could wish 
indeed, that, instead of a word, a traveller’s physiognomical 
companion were VTitten; but this must be done by an 
experienced traveller. In the mean time I shall bid him 
farewell, with the following short advice :— 

What do you seek, travellers ? what is your wish ? 
WLat would you see more remarkable, more singular, 
more rare, more worthy to be examined, than the varieties 
of humanity ? This indeed is fashionable. You inquire 
after men; you seek the wisest, best, and greatest men, 
especially the most famous. Why is your curiosity 
limited to seeing only ? Would it not be better you 
should illuminate your own minds by the light of others, 
and animate yourselves by their ardour ? 

His curiosity is childish which is merely confined to 
seeing, whose ambition desires only to say, I have be¬ 
held that man. He who would disregard views so con¬ 
fined, must study such men physiognomicaUy; if he 
would learn wisdom, he must be able to compare and 



234 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


judge of the relation between their works, their fame, 
and their form. By this only may much be learned. 
By this may the stream be compared to the fountain, 
the quality of the waters examined, their course, their 
gentle murmurs, or more boisterous war. The inquirer 
may ask, what is the degree of originality of those men, 
what is borrowed, what is internal, what external ? 
This forehead and these eyebrows will thus versify, thus 
translate, thus criticise; therefore on this eye depends 
the fate of the writer, the blockhead, or the man of genius. 
This nose thus estimates the mortal and the immortal 
in the human performances. As are the features so will 
be the mind. 

Yes, scholars of nature, you have much to learn from 
the countenances of famous men. In them you will 
read that the wasp will dare to alight on the nose of 
the hero. To me it wilL be pleasure when you have 
acquired this physiognomical sensation; for, without 
this, you will but travel in the dark; you wiU but be 
led through a picture-gallery blindfold, only that you 
might say, I too have been in that gallery. 

Could I travel unknown, I would also visit artists, 
men of learning, and philosophers, men famous in their 
respective countries ; but it should either be my adieu, 
as the thing least important, or as a recreation on 
my arrival. Pardon me, men of renown; I have been 
credulous in your favour, but I daily become more cir¬ 
cumspect. Far be it from me to depreciate your worth. 
I know many whose presence does not diminish but in¬ 
crease fame; yet will I be careful that remorse shall 
neither dazzle nor cloud my reason. 

It would be much more agreeable to me to mix un¬ 
known with the multitude, visit churches, public walks. 


A WORD TO TRAVELLERS. 


235 


hospitals, orphan-houses, and assemblies of ecclesiastics 
and men of the law. I would first consider the general 
form of the inhabitants, their height, proportion, strength, 
weakness, motion, complexion, attitude, gesture, and gait. 
I would observe them individually, see, compare, close 
my eyes, trace in imagination all I have seen, open them 
again, correct my memory, and close and open them 
alternately. I would study for words, write, and draw, 
with a few determinate traits, the general form, so easy 
to be discovered. T would compare my drawings with 
the known general form of the people. How easily 
might a summary, an index of the people, be obtained! 

Having made these familiar to me, I would descend 
to the particular, would search for the general form of 
the head, would ask. Is it most confined to the cylindri¬ 
cal, the spherical, the square, the convex, or the concave ? 
Is the countenance open, is it writhed, is it free, or 
forked ? I would next examine the forehead, then the 
eyebrows, the outline and colour of the eyes, the nose, 
and especially the mouth when it is open; and the teeth, 
with their appearances, to discover the national charac¬ 
teristic. 

Could I but define the Line of the opening of the lips 
in seven promiscuous countenances, I imagine I should 
have found the general physiognomical character of the 
nation or place. I almost dare to establish it as an 
axiom, that what is common to six or seven persons of 
any place, taken promiscuously, is more or less common 
to the whole. Exceptions there may be, but they will 
be rare. 

In the next place, I would plant myself in a public 
walk, or at the crossing of streets. There I would wait 
patiently for the unknown noble countenance, uncor- 


236 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


rupted by fame and adulation, which certainly, most 
certainly, I should find: for, in all countries on earth 
wherever a hundred common men are assembled, one 
not common may be found; and out of a thousand, ten. 

I must have indeed little eye, little sensibility for 
noble humanity, little faith in Providence, which seeks 
its adorers, if I did not find this one in a hundred, or at 
least in the ten among a thousand. He that seeketh 
shall find. I waited not in vain. He came, I found 
him, he passed by me. And what were the tokens by 
which I discovered him in every town, in every nation, 
under every cope of heaven, and among all people, 
kindred, and tongues ? By the general combination of 
the countenance, by the upper outline of the forehead, the 
eyebrows, the basis of the nose, and the mouth, so con¬ 
formable to each other, so parallel and horizontal, at the 
first glance. By the wrinkless, compressed yet open 
forehead, the powerful eyebrows; the easily discerned, 
easily delineated space between the eyebrows, which 
extends itself to the back of the nose, like the great 
street from the market-place to the chief gate of a 
city. By the shut but freely breathing mouth; the 
chin neither haggard nor fleshy; the deep and shining 
attraction of the eye; which all, incautiously and unin¬ 
tentionally, betrayed themselves to my research; or, I 
discovered him even in his foreign and distorted form, 
from which the arrogant, self-supposed handsome, would 
turn with contempt. I see through his disguise, as I 
should the hand of a great master through the smear of 
varnish. 

I approach the favourite of heaven. I question him 
concerning what I do, and what I do not wish to know, 
that I may hear the voice of the soul proceeding from 


A WORD TO TRAVELLERS. 


237 


the mouth; and, viewing him nearer, I see all the obli¬ 
quities of distortion vanish. I ask him concerning his 
occupation, his family, his place of residence. I inquire 
the road thither. I come unexpectedly upon him into 
his house, into his workshop; he rises, I oblige him to 
be seated, to continue his labour. I see his children, his 
wife, and am delighted. He knows not what I want, 
nor do I know myself, yet am I pleased with him, and 
he with me. I purchase something or nothiug, as it 
happens. I inquire particularly after his friends. You 
have but few, but those few are faithful.” He stands 
astonished, smiles or weeps, in the innocence and good¬ 
ness of his heart, which he wishes to conceal, but which 
is open as day. He gains my affection; our emotions 
are reciprocally expanded and strengthened; we separate 
reluctantly, and I know I have entered a house which is 
entered by the angels of God. 

Oh! how gratefully, how highly is he rewarded for 
his labours who travels, interested in behalf of humanity, 
and, with the eyes of a man, to collect in the spirit 
the children of God, who are scattered over the world! 
This appears to me to be the supreme bliss of man, as it 
must be of angels. 

If I do not meet him, I have no resource but in 
society. Here I hear him most who speaks least, mild¬ 
est, and most unaffectedly. Wherever I meet the smile 
of self-sufficiency, or the oblique look of envy, I turn 
away, and seek him who remains oppressed by the loud 
voice of confidence. I set myself rather beside the 
answerer than the man of clamorous loquacity; and still 
rather beside the humble inquirer than the voluble 
solver of all difficulties. 

He who hastens too fast, or lags behind, is no com- 


238 


LAVATER’s PHYSIOGNOilT. 


panion of mine. I rather seek him who walks with a 
free, firm, and even step; who looks but little about 
him; who neither carries his head aloft, nor contemplates 
his legs and feet. If the hand of afidiction be heavy on 
him, I set myself by his side, take his hand, and, with a 
glance, infuse conviction to his soul, that God is love. 

In my memory I retain the simple outlines of the 
loud and the violent, the laughter and the smiles, 
of him who gives the key, and him who takes. I then 
commit them to paper; my collection increases. I 
compare, arrange, judge, and am astonished. I every 
where find similarity of traits, similarity of character; 
the same humanity every where, and every where the 
same tokens. 


CHAPTER XLV. 

A Word to Princes and Judges. 

For your use, most important of men, how wjHiugly 
would I write a treatise! Who, so much as you, need a 
perfect knowledge of man, free from cabal or the inter¬ 
vention of self-interest? Suffer me to approach your 
throne, and present my address. 

In your most secret commonplace-book keep an index 
to each class of character among men, taken from at 
least ten of the most accurate proofs; not at a distance, 
not among foreigners, but seek at home for the wisest 
and best of your own subjects. Wherever a wise and 
j;ood prince governs, there are excellent subjects. Such 
a prince believes that he has such subjects, although at 
the moment he should be unacquainted with them; oi*, 
at least, that he has subjects capable of wisdom and 
goodness. Wherever one good person is, there certainly 



A WORD TO PRINCES AND JUDGES. 


239 


are two, as certainly as where the female is there will 
the male be. 

Suffer me, princes, consecrated as you are among 
men, to entreat you, for the honour of humanity, prin¬ 
cipally to study, to seek for, and to seize on excellence. 
Judge not too suddenly, nor by mere appearances. 
That which a prince once approves, it may afterwards 
be difficult or dangerous to reject. Depend not on the 
testimony of others, which, to princes especially, is ever 
exaggerated either in praise or blame; but examine the 
countenance, which, though it may dissemble to a prince, 
or rather to the dignity of a prince, cannot deceive him 
as a man. Having once discovered wisdom and good¬ 
ness in a subject, honour such a subject as the best 
blessing which Heaven can in this world bestow upon 
its favourites. Seek features that are strong, but not 
forbidding; gentle, yet not effeminate; positive, without 
turbulence; natural, not arrogant; with open eyes, clear 
aspects ; strong noses near the forehead, and with such 
let your thrones be surrounded. 

Intrust your secrets to proportionate and parallel 
drawn countenances; to horizontal, firm, compressed 
eyebrows; channelled, not too rigorously closed, red, 
active, but not relaxed or withered lips. Yet I will for¬ 
bear to delineate, and again only entreat that the coun¬ 
tenance may be sacred to you for the sake of goodness 
and wisdom. 

As to you, judges, judge not indeed by appearances, 
but examine according to appearances. Justice bhnd- 
fold without physiognomy, is as unnatural as blindfold 
love. There are countenances which cannot have com¬ 
mitted a multitude of vices.. Study the traits of each 
vice, and the forms in which vice naturally or unwill- 


240 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


ingly resides. There are capabilities and incapabilities 
in the countenance, things which it can will, others 
which it cannot. Each passion, open or concealed, has it? 
peculiar language. The appearance of innocence is as 
determinate to the experienced eye as the appearance 
of health. 

Bring guilt and innocence face to face, and examine 
them in your presence, and when they suppose you do 
not observe them in the presence and in the absence of 
witnesses ; with justice see, with justice hear and obey, 
the determined voice of unprejudiced conviction. Ee- 
mark their walk when they enter, and when they leave 
the jndgment-halL Let the light fall upon their coun¬ 
tenances ; be yourself in the shade. Physiognomy will 
render the torture unnecessary,* will deliver innocence, 
will make the most obdurate vice turn pale, will teach 
us how we may act upon the most hardened. Every 
thing human must be imperfect; yet will it be evident that 
the torture, more disgraceful to man than the halter, the 
axe, and the wheel, is infinitely more uncertain and dan¬ 
gerous than physiognomy. The pain of torture is more 
horrible even than the succeeding death, yet it is only 
to prove, to discover truth. Physiognomy shall not exe¬ 
cute, and yet it shall prove; and by its proof vice alone, 
and not innocence, shall suffer. 0 ye judges of men, be 
men, and humanity shall teach you, with more open 
eyes, to see and abhor all that is inhuman ! 

* A few years since one philosopher wrote to another, The torture will 
soon be abolished in Austria. It was asked, What shall be its substitute? 
The penetrating look of the judge, replied Sonnenfels. Physiognomy will, in 
twenty-five years, become a part of jurisprudence instead of torture, and 
lectures will be read in the universities on the Physiognomice forense instead of 
the Medicina Jorensis, 


A WORD TO THE CLERGY. 


241 


CHAPTEE XLVI. 

A Word to the Clergij. 

You also, my brethren, need a certain degree of pliy- 
siognomy, and perhaps, princes excepted, no men more. 
Yon ought to know whom yon have before yon, that 
yon may discern spirits, and portion out the word of 
truth to each, according to his need and capacity. To 
whom can a knowledge of the degree of actual and pos¬ 
sible virtue, in all who appear before you, be more ad¬ 
vantageous than to you ? 

To me physiognomy is more indispensable than the 
liturgy. It is to me alike profitable for doctrine, exhor¬ 
tation, comfort, correction, examination; with the healthy, 
with the sick, the dying, the malefactor; in judicial ex¬ 
aminations, and the education of youth. Without it, I 
should be as the blind leading the blind. 

I might be robbed of my ardour or inspired with en¬ 
thusiasm by a single countenance. Whenever I preach, 
I generally seek the most noble countenance, on which 
I endeavour to act, and the weakest when teaching 
children. It is generally our own fault if our hearers 
are inattentive, if they do not themselves give the key 
in which it is necessary they should be addressed. 

» Every teacher possessed of physiognomical sensation 
will easily discern and arrange the principal classes 
among his hearers, and what each class can and cannot 
receive. Let six or seven classes, of various capacities, 
be selected; let a chief, a representative, a characteristic 
countenance of each class be chosen : let these counte¬ 
nances be fixed in the memory, and let the preacher 
accommodate him self to each; speaking thus to one, and 
thus to another, and in such a manner to a third. 

11 


242 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


There cannot be a more natural, effective, or definite 
incitement to eloquence, than supposing some characte¬ 
ristic countenance present, of the capacity of which almost 
mathematical certainty may be obtained. Having six 
or seven, I have nearly my whole audience before me. 
I do not then speak to the winds. God teaches us by 
physiognomy to act upon the best of men according to 
the best of means. 


CHAPTEK XLVII.. 

Physiognomical Elucidations of Goimtcnanccs. 

A regular well-formed countenance is where all the 
parts are remarkable for their symmetry; the principal 
features, as the eyes, nose, and mouth, neither small nor 
bloated. In which the position of the parts, taken to¬ 
gether and viewed at a distance, appears nearly horizon¬ 
tal and parallel 

A beautiful countenance is that in which, besides the 
proportion and position of the parts, harmony, uniformity, 
and mind are visible; in which nothing is superfluous, 
nothing deficient, nothing disproportionate, nothing 
super-added, but all is conformity and concord. 

A ^pleasant countenance does not necessarily require 
perfect symmetry and harmony; yet nothing must be 
wanting, nothing burdensome. Its pleasantry will princi¬ 
pally exist in the eye and lips, which must have nothing 
commanding, arrogant, contemptuous, but must generally 
speak complacency, affability, and benevolence. 

A gracious countenance arises out of the pleasant; 
when, far from any thing assuming, to the mildest bene¬ 
volence are added affability and purity. 

A charming countenance must not simply consist 



PHYSIOGNOMICAL ELUCIDATIONS. 


243 


either of the beautiful, the pleasant, or the gracious; hut 
when to these is added a rapid propriety of motion, which 
renders it charming. 

An insinuating countenance leaves no power to active 
or passive suspicion. It has something more than the 
pleasant, by infusing that into the heart which the 
pleasant only manifests. 

Other species of these delightful countenances are, the 
attracting, the winning, the irresistible. 

Very distinct from all these are the amusing, the 
divertingly loquacious, the merely mild, and also the 
tender and delicate. 

Superior, and more lovely still, is the purely innocent, 
where no distorted oblique muscle, whether in motion 
or at rest, is ever seen. 

This is still more exalted when it is full of soul, of 
natural symapthy, and power to excite sympathy. 

When in a pure countenance good power is accom¬ 
panied by a spirit of order, I may call it an Attic 
countenance. 

Spiritually leautiful may be said of a countenance 
where nothing thoughtless, inconsiderate, rude, or severe, 
is to be expected; and the aspect of which immediately 
and mildly incites emotion in the principal powers of 
the mind. 

Noble is when we have not the least indiscretion to 
fear, and when the countenance is exalted above us, 
without a possibility of envy) while it is less sensible of 
its own superiority than of the pleasure we receive in 
its presence. 

A great countenance will have few small secondary 
traits; will be in grand divisions, without wrinkles; 
must exalt, must affect us, in sleep, in plaster of Paris, 


244 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


in every kind of caricatures; as, for example, tkat of 
Philip de Comines. 

A sublime countenance can neither be painted nor de¬ 
scribed ; that by which it is distinguished from all others 
can only be felt. It must not only move, it must exalt 
the spectator. We must at once feel ourselves greater 
and less in its presence than in the presence of all others. 

Whoever is conscious of its excellence, and can 
despise or offend it, may, as hath been before said, 
blaspheme against the great Author of his existence. 


CHAPTER XLVIII. 

Physiognomical Anecdotes, 

1 . 

I HAVE nothing to require of you, said a father to his 
innocent son, when bidding him farewell, but that you 
bring me back your present countenance. 

2 . 

A noble, amiable, and innocent young lady, who had 
been educated principally in the country, saw her face 
in the glass as she passed it with a candle in her hand, 
retiring from evening prayers, and having just laid 
down her Bible. Her eyes were cast to the ground with 
inexpressible modesty at the sight of her own image. 
She passed the winter in to^vn, surrounded by adorers, 
hurried away by dissipation, and plunged in trifling 
amusements. She forgot her Bible and her devotion. 
In the beginning of spring she returned to her country 
seat, her chamber, and the table on which the Bible lay. 
Again she had the candle in her hand, and again saw 
herself in the glass. She turned pale, put down the 



PHYSIOGNOMICAL ELUCIDATIONS. 


245 


candle, retreated to a sofa, and fell on her knees: 

“ 0 God ! I no longer know my own face. How am I 
degraded! My follies and vanities are all written in 
my countenance. Wherefore have they been neglected, 
illegible, to this instant ? 0 come and expel, come and 

utterly efface them, mild tranquillity, sweet devotion, 
and ye gentle cares of benevolent love! ” 

3. 

“ I will forfeit my life,” said Titus of the priest Taci¬ 
tus, “ if this man he not an arch knave. I have three 
times observed him sigh and weep without cause; and 
ten times turn aside to conceal a laugh he could not 
restrain, when vice or misfortune were mentioned.” 

4. 

A stranger said to a physiognomist, “How many 
dollars is my face worth ? ”—“ It is hard to determine,” 
replied the latter.—“ It is worth fifteen hundred,” con¬ 
tinued the questioner, “ for so many has a person lent 
me upon it, to whom I was a total stranger.” 

5. 

A poor man asked alms, “ How much do you want ? ” 
said the person of whom he asked, astonished at the 
peculiar honesty of his countenance. “How shall I 
dare to fix a sum ? ” answered the needy person. “ Give 
me what you please, sir, I shall be contented and thank- 
ful.”_« Hot so,” replied the physiognomist; “ as God 
lives, I will give you what you want, be it little oi 
much.” Then, sir, be pleased to give me eight shih 

_“Here they are; had you asked a hundred 

guineas you should have had them. 


246 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


CHAPTEE XLIX. 

Miscellaneous Extracts from Kcemjpfs Essay on the j 
Temperaments, with Remarks, | 

1. I 

“ Will not physiognomy be to man what the looking- | 

glass is to an ugly woman ? ” I 

Let me also add, to the handsome woman. The wise 
looks in the glass, and washes away spots; the fool 
looks, turns back, and remains as he was. 

2 . 

Each temperament, each character, has its good and , 
bad. The one has inclinations of which the other is i 
incapable. The one has more than the other. The ingot | 
is of more worth than the guineas individually into 
which it is coined; yet the latter are most useful The 
tulip delights by its beauty, the carnation by its smell. 
The unseemly wormwood displeases both taste and smell, 
yet in medical virtue is superior to both. There it is 
that each contributes to the perfection of the whole.” 

The carnation should not wish to be a tulip, the finger 
an eye, nor the weak desire to act within the circle of 
the strong. Each has its peculiar circle, as it has its 
peculiar form. To wish to depart from this circle is 
like wishing to be transported into another body. 

3. 

“ Within the course of a year we are assured that the 
activity of nature changes the body, yet we are sensible 
of no change of mind, although our body has been sub¬ 
jected to the greatest changes, in consequence of meat, 
drink, air, and other accidents; the difference of air and 
manner of life does not change the temperament.” 



EXTRACTS FROM K^MPF. 


tiA7 

The foundation of character lies deeper, and is, in a 
certain degree, independent of all accidents. It is pro¬ 
bably the spiritual and immortal texture into which all 
that is visible, corruptible, and transitory is interwoven. 

4. 

A block of wood may be carved by a statuary into 
what form he shall please; he may make it an ^sop or 
an Antinous, but he wiU never change the inherent 
nature of the wood.” 

To know and distinguish the materials and form of 
men, so far as knowledge contributes to their proper 
application, is the highest and most effectual wisdom of 
which human nature is capable. 

5. 

"In the eyes of certain persons there is something 
sublime, which beams and exacts reverence. This subli¬ 
mity is the concealed power of raising themselves above 
others, which is not the wretched effect of constraint, but 
primitive essence. Each finds himself obliged to submit 
to this secret power without knowing why, as soon as he 
perceives that look, implanted by nature to inspire 
reverence, shining in the eyes. Those who possess this 
natural, sovereign essence, rule as lords or lions among 
men by native privilege, with heart and tongue conquer¬ 
ing all.” 

6 . 

"There are only four different aspects, all different 
from each other, the ardent, the dull, the fixed, and the 
fluctuating.” 

The application is the proof of aU general propositions. 
Let physiognomical axioms be applied to known indi¬ 
viduals, friends or enemies, and their truth or falsehood, 


248 


LAVATEE S PHYSIOGNOMY. 


precision or inaccuracy, will easily be determined. Let 
us make the experiment with the above, and we shall 
certainly find there are numerous aspects which are not 
included within these four; such as the luminous aspect, 
very different from the ardent, and neither fixed like the 
melancholic, nor fluctuating like the sanguine. 

There is the look or aspect which is at once rapid 
and fixed, and, as I may say, penetrates and attaches at 
the same moment. There is the tranquilly active look, 
neither choleric nor phlegmatic. I think it would be 
better to arrange them into the giving, receiving, and 
the giving and receiving combined; or, into intensive 
and extensive; or, into the attracting, repelling, and 
unparticipating; into the contracted, the relaxed, the 
strained, the attaining, the unattaining, the tranquil, the 
steady, the slow, the open, the closed, the cold, tlie 
amorous, &c. 


CHAPTER L. 

U;pon Portrait Painting, 

POKTRAIT painting, the most natural, manly, useful, 
noble, and, however apparently easy, is the most difficult 
of the arts. Love first discovered this heavenly art. 
Without love, what could it perform ? 

As on this art depends a great part of this present 
work, and the science on which it treats, it is proper 
that something should be said on the subject. Some¬ 
thing; for how new, how important, and great a 
work might be written on this art! Eor the honour of 
man, and of the art, I hope such a work will be written. 
I do not think it ought to be the work of a painter, 
however great in his profession, but of the understanding 



POJITRAIT PAINTING. 


249 


friend of physiognomy, the man of taste, the daily con¬ 
fidential observer of the great portrait painter. 

Sultzer, that philosopher of taste and discernment, has 
an excellent article in his dictionary on this subject, 
under the word Portrait. But what can be said, in a 
work so confined, on a subject so extensive? Again, 
whoever will employ his thoughts on this art, will find 
that it is sufficient to exercise all the searching, all the 
active powers of man; that it never can he entirely 
learned, nor ever can arrive at ideal perfection. 

I shall now attempt to recapitulate some of the avoid¬ 
able and unavoidable difficulties attendant on this art; 
the knowledge of which, in my opinion, is as necessary 
to the painter as to the physiognomist. 

Let us first inquire. What is portrait pamting ? It is 
the communication, the preservation of the image of 
some individual; the art of suddenly depicting all that 
can he depicted of that half of man which is rendered 
apparent, and which never can he conveyed in words. 
If what Goethe has somewhere said he true, and in my 
opinion nothing can he more true, that the best text for 
a commentary on man is his presence, his countenance, 
his form; how important, then, is the art of portrait 
painting! 

To this observation of Goethe’s, I will add a passage on 
the subject from Sultzer’s excellent dictionary: “ Since 
no object of knowledge whatever can he more important 
to us than a thinking and feeling soul, it cannot he 
denied but that man, considered according to his form, 
even though we should neglect what is wonderful in 
him, is the most important of visible objects.” 

The portrait painter should know, feel, and be pene¬ 
trated with this: penetrated with reverence for the 


250 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


greatest works of the greatest masters. Were sucii tke 
subject of his meditation, not from constraint, but native 
sensation; were it as natural to him as the love of 
life, how important, how sacred to him, would this art 
become! Sacred to him should be the living counte¬ 
nance as the text of holy scripture to the translator. As 
careful should the one be not to falsify the work, as 
should be the other not to falsify the word of God. 

Great is the contempt which an excellent translator 
of an excellent work deserves, whose mind is wholly 
inferior to the mind of his original And is it not the 
same with the portrait painter? The countenance is 
the theatre on which the soul exhibits itself: here must 
its emanations be studied and caught. Whoever cannot 
seize these emanations cannot paint; and whoever can¬ 
not paint these is no portrait painter. 

Each perfect portrait is an important painting, since 
it displays the human mind with the peculiarities of 
personal character. In such we contemplate a being 
where understanding, inclinations, sensations, passions, 
good and bad qualities of mind and heart, are mingled 
in a manner peculiar to itself. We here frequently see 
them better than in nature herself, since in nature no¬ 
thing is fixed, all is swift, all is transient. In nature, 
also, we seldom behold the features under that propi¬ 
tious aspect in which they will be transmitted by the 
able painter. 

If we could, indeed, seize the fieeting transitions of 
nature, or had she her moments of stability, it would then 
be much more advantageous to contemplate nature than 
her likeness; but this being impossible, and since, like¬ 
wise, few people will suffer themselves to be observed 
sufficiently to deserve the name of observation, it is to 


PORTRAIT PAINTING. 


251 


me indisputable, that a better knowledge of man may be 
obtained from portraits than from nature, sbe being thus 
uncertain, thus fugitive. 

The rank of the portrait painter may hence be easily 
determined; he stands next to the historical painter 
Nay, history painting itself derives a part of its value 
from its portraits ; for expression, one of the most im¬ 
portant requisites in historical painting, will be the more 
estimable, natural, and strong, the more of natural 
physiognomy is expressed in the countenances, and 
copied after nature. A collection of excellent portraits 
is highly advantageous to the historical painter for the 
study of expression. 

Where shall we find the historical painter who can 
represent real beings with all the decorations of fiction ? 
Do we not see them all copying copies ? True it is> 
they frequently copy from imagination; but this imagi¬ 
nation is only stored with the fashionable figures of their 
own or former times. 

Having presumed thus far, let us now enumerate some 
of the surmountable dijBdculties of portrait painting. I 
am conscious the freedom with which I shall speak my 
thoughts will offend, yet to give offence is far from my 
intention. I wish to aid, to teach that art, which is 
the imitation of the works of God : I wish improve¬ 
ment. And how is improvement possible without a 
frank and undisguised discovery of defects ! 

In all the works of portrait painters which I have 
seen, I have remarked the want of a more philosophical, 
that is to say, a more just, intelligible, and universal 
knowledge of men. The insect painter, who has no 
accurate knowledge of insects, the form, the general, the 
particular, which is appropriated to each insect, however 


252 


layater’s physiognomy. 


good a copyist lie may be, will certaiuly be a bad paintei 
of insects. The portrait painter, however excellent a 
copyist, (a thing much less general than is imagined by 
connoisseurs,) will paint portraits ill if he have not the 
most accurate knowledge of the form, proportion, con¬ 
nection, and dependence of the great and minute parts of 
the human body, as far as they have a remarkable in¬ 
fluence on the superflcies; if he has not most accurately 
investigated each individual member and feature. Tor 
my own part, be my knowledge what it may, it is far 
from accurate in what relates to the minute specific 
traits of each sensation, each member, each feature; yet 
I daily remark that this acute, this indispensable know¬ 
ledge, is at present every where uncultivated, unknown, 
and difidcult to convey to the most intelligent painters. 

Those who will be at the trouble of considering a 
number of men promiscuously taken, feature by feature, 
will find that each ear, each mouth, notwithstanding 
their infinite diversity, have yet their small curves, 
corners, characters, which are common to all, and which 
are found stronger or weaker, more or less marking, in all 
men who are not monsters born, at least in these parts. 

Of what advantage is all our knowledge of the great 
proportions of the body and countenance ? (Yet even 
that part of knowledge is, by far, not sufficiently studied, 
not sufficiently accurate. Some future physiognomical 
painter will justify this assertion, till when, be it con¬ 
sidered as nothing more than cavil.) Of what advan¬ 
tage, I say, is all our knowledge of the great proportions, 
when the knowledge of the finer traits, which are equally 
true, general, determinate, and no less significant, is 
wanting ? And this want is so great, that I appeal to 
those who are best informed, whether many of the ablest 


rorvTRAlT PAmTTXG. 


253 

painters, wlio have painted numerous portraits, have any 
tolerably accurate or general theory of the mouth only. 
I do not mean the anatomical mouth, but the mouth of 
the painter, which he ought to see, and may see, without 
any anatomical knowledge. 

I have examined volume after volume of engravings 

O O ' 

of portraits after the greatest masters, and am therefore 
entitled to speak. But let us confine observations 
to the mouth. Having previously studied infants, boys, 
youth, manhood, old age, maidens, wives, matrons, with 
respect to the general properties of the mouth; and 
having discovered these, let us compare, and we shall 
find that almost all painters have failed in the general 
theory of the mouth; that it seldom happens, and seems 
only to happen by accident, that any master has under¬ 
stood these general properties. Yet how indescribably 
much depends on them! What is the particular, what 
the characteristic, but shades of the general! As it is 
with the mouth, so it is with the eyes, eyebrows, nose, 
and each part of the countenance. 

The same proportion exists between the great features 
of the face; and as there is this general proportion in 
all countenances, however various, so is there a similar 
proportion between the small traits of these parts. 
Infinitely varied are the great features in their general 
combination and proportion. As infinitely varied are 
the shades of the small traits in these features, however 
great their general resemblance. Without an accurate 
knowledge of the proportion of the principal features, 
as, for example, of the eyes and mouth, to each other, it 
must ever be mere accident, an accident that indeed 
rarely happens, when such proportion exists in the 
works of the painter Without an accurate knowledge 


254 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


of the particular constituent parts and traits of each 
principal feature, I once again repeat, it must he acci¬ 
dent, miraculous accident, should any one of them be 
justly delineated. 

The reflecting artist may be induced from this remark 
to study nature intimately by principle, and to show 
liim, if he be in search of permanent fame, that, though 
he ought to behold and study the works of the greatest 
masters with esteem and reverence, he yet ought to ex¬ 
amine and judge for himself. Let him not make the 
virtue modesty his plea, for under this does omnipresent 
mediocrity shelter itself. Modesty, indeed, is not so 
properly virtue as the garb and ornament of virtue, and 
of existing positive power. Let him, I say, examine for 
himself, and study nature in whole and in part, as if no 
man ever had observed, or ever shoidd observe, but him¬ 
self. Deprived of this, young artist, thy glory will but 
resemble a meteor’s blaze; it will only be founded on 
the ignorance of your contemporaries. 

By far the greater part of the best portmit painters, 
when most successful, like the majority of physiogno¬ 
mists, content themselves with expressing the character 
of the passions in the moveable, the muscular features 
of the face. They do not understand, they laugh at, 
rules which prescribe the grand outline of the counte¬ 
nance as indispensable to portrait painting, independeiiu 
of the effects produced by the action of the muscles. 

Till institutions shall be formed for the improvement 
of portrait painting, perhaps till a physiognomical- 
society or academy shall produce physiognomical por¬ 
trait painters, we shall at best but creep in the regions 
of physiognomy, where we might otherwise soar. One 
of the greatest obstacles to physiognomy is the actual. 


PORTRAIT PAINTING- 


incredible imperfection of this art. There is generally a 
defect of eye or hand of the painter, or the object is 
defective which is to be delineated, or perhaps all three. 
The artist cannot discover what is, or cannot draw it 
when he discovers it. The object continually alters its 
position, which ought to be so exact, so continually the 
same; or should it not, and should the painter be en¬ 
dowed with an all-observing eye, an all-imitative hand, 
still there is the last insuperable difficulty, that of the 
position of the body, which can but be momentary, 
which is constrained, false, and unnatural, when more 
than momentary. 

Trifling, indeed, is what I have said to what might be 
said. According to the knowledge I have of it, this is 
yet uncultivated ground. How little has Sultzer him¬ 
self said on the subject! But what could he say in a 
dictionary ? A work wholly dedicated to this is neces¬ 
sary to examine and decide on the works of the best 
portrait painters, and to insert all the cautions and 
rules necessary for the young artist, in consequence of 
the infinite variety, yet incredible uniformity, of tlie 
human countenance. * 

The artist who wishes to paint portraits perfectly, 
must so paint that each spectator may with truth exclaim 
“ This is indeed to paint! this is true, living likeness ; 
perfect nature ; it is not painting! Outline, form, pro¬ 
portion, position, attitude, complexion, light and shade, 
freedom, ease, nature! Nature in every characteristic 
disposition! Nature in the complexion, in each trait, in 
her most beauteous, happiest moments, her most select, 
most propitious state of mind; near at a distance, on 
every side Truth and Nature ! Evident to all men, all 
ages, the ignorant and the connoisseur; most conspicuous 


256 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


to him who has most knowledge; no suspicion of art; j 
a countenance in a mirror, to which we would speak ^ that 1 
speaks to us ; that contemplates more than it is contem- j 
plated ; we rush to it, we embrace it, we are enchanted !” 

Young artist! emulate such excellence, and the least 
of your attainments in this age will be riches and honour, 
and fame in futurity. With tears you will receive the 
thanks of father, friend, and husband, and your work 
will honour that Being whose creation is the noblest 
gift of man to imitate ! 


CHAPTER LI. 

Dcscfi'iption of Plate VIT. 

Numler 1. Frederick of Prussia. 

How much yet how little is there of the royal counte¬ 
nance in this copy! The covered forehead may be sus¬ 
pected from this nose, this sovereign feature. The forked, 
descending wrinkles of the nose are expressive of killing 
contempt. The great eyes, with a nose so bony, denote 
a firmness and fire not easily to be withstood. Wit and 
satirical fancy are apparent in the mouth, though de¬ 
fectively drawn. There is something minute seen in the 
chin, which cannot well be in nature. 

% 

Number 2. Catherine, Empress of Russia. 

Except the smaUness of the nostril, and the distance 
of the.eyebrow from the outline of the forehead, no one 
can mistake the princely, the superior, the masculine 
firmness of this, nevertheless feminine, but fortunate 
and kind countenance. 





t 






















■»i 




.• ' ^rvf 




• T^V if ^•. v'' * 

‘■ritv ‘^/ iVi^^ 

,W‘'. 


■ 42 #«#•'> ■' ■. -. 

1JW.■■>^^'^ ' 'Hi • •.’n'i?»i 

i ■ 


. i 


»r, 



■ 1 . 

^^ j’' ' 'X* -^'-rAi.* \- 

C' ^.r, -^“Vv-. 



; t ■ r-^ ‘M 


' .>^4 


W* 


Al 


i^,;? 


iT^ =»J 


-Vi 



ZJ*. 




V '•MW»AXx..V. •• n;’;. 

•»■ ■ •■ -- ■>£< 


M- » 


* ‘’'£ .^^B1 

J ■ :OlJW 


Ti' '■ 


I • 


». - 




' 4 >. 


4k 


r-..? ^V / 


; 


' r 


& 


.*> 




nftKfr' 




V f 


>: 




£it 




• i" 




p;;:»'•■* W,'‘>-^^ 







M.r 


4 A- _ ii^ ^ 


W‘ tJ • ' *2 PP 

- •» f * 




' *. 


^*2:_•' 


Vj 


u 












a 


,»i 



5t.X,-^siV 




B-y. 


s'f* 


^1 




.v^> 




>K 


i*»- 


1^4* 


SiV 


<r 


rn 


y- 


•;V. 


'li 


r-^ 






V*:: 




r>. 




F£r. 


■J 


4^;- 






-V*:V'; 






- 4 * 




«*i 


't ■* 




.u;: 


ir^Jyi 


>• 


-‘^ .. rzy 

»« T .‘. , '. *i 


# . - ■*■' 


• •' 




li’#- 


rV.* 




'♦’* Tv 




l^-Vf 


'Vt 


4 Vi 


i 


f < 


/lU:’ 








^1 


■^-l. 




>* V 






•s .<_ .* 




?i' 








'f.^‘ 








.* » 




4^ 


/« 


^-r-. 




’^V. • -• 




««l 




K ^ ‘.I 


. * ♦ t i 


v.viis: 




,^’K^ a ■;'? 


. . ./v 


■4 if 






•W] 


Id 'V 


%J3 


» vV 








m 


/* •! 


k O'l 


•/.4 




‘? 




V 


• K 


JC- 


4» ,' 






iv 















t-'* < 




DESCRIPTION OP PLATE VII. 


257 


Number 3. Voltaire. 

Precision is wanting to tHe outline of the eye, power 
to the eyebrows, the sting, the scourge of satire to the 
forehead. The under part of the profile, on the contrary, 
speaks a flow of wit, acute, exuberant, exalted, ironical, 
never deficient in reply. 

Number 4. P. De Malherbe. 

Here is a high, comprehensive, powerful, firm, reten¬ 
tive Prench forehead, that appears to want the open, free, 
noble essence of the former; has something rude and 
productive; is more choleric; and its firmness appears 
to border on harshness. 

Number 5. J. De Voisik 

The delicate construction of the forehead, the aspect 
of the man of the world, the beauty of the nose, in 
particular, the somewhat rash, satirical mouth, the plea¬ 
sure-loving chin, all show the Prenchman of a superior 
class. The excellent companion, the fanciful wit, the 
supple courtier, are every where apparent. 

Number 6. J. C. Lavater. 

A bad likeness of the author of these Augments, yet 
not to be absolutely mistaken. The whole aspect, especi¬ 
ally the mouth, speaks inoffensive tranquillity, and 
benevolence bordering on weakness ;—more understand¬ 
ing and less sensibility in the nose than the author 
supposes himself to possess—some talent for observation 
in the eye and eyebrows. 

s 


258 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


CHAPTEE LIL 
Miscellaneous Quotations. 

1 . ' 
Campanella lias not only made very accurate obser- | 
vations on human faces^but was very expert in mimick- i 
ing such as were any way remarkable. Whenever he ! 
thought proper to penetrate into the inclinations of those i 
he had to deal with, he composed his face, his gestures, , 
and his whole body, as nearly as he could, into the exact i 
similitude of the person he intended to examine, and ; 
then carefully observed what turn of mind he seemed to 
acquire by this change. So that, says my author, he 
was able to enter into the disposition and thoughts of 
people, as effectually as if he had been changed into the 
very man. I have often observed that, on mimicking 
the gestures and looks of angry, or placid, or frightened, 
or daring men, I have involuntarily foimd my mind 
turned to that passion whose appearance I endeavour to 
imitate. Nay, I am convinced it is hard to avoid it, 
though one strove to separate the passion from its corre¬ 
spondent gestures. Our minds and bodies are so closely 
and intimately connected, that one is incapable of pain 
or pleasure without the other. Campanella, of whoii; 
we have been speaking, could so abstract his attentior 
from any sufferings of his body, that he was able tc 
endure the rack itself without much pain; and in lesser 
pains every body must have observed that, when we can 
employ our attention on any thing else, the pain has 
been for a time suspended. On the other hand, if by 
any means the body is indisposed to perform such 
gestures, or to be stimulated into such emotions as any 
passion usually produces in it, that passion itself never 






MISCELLANEOUS QUOTATIONS. 


259 


can arise, thougli its cause should be never so strongly 
in action, thongh it should he merely mental, and im¬ 
mediately affecting none of the senses. As an opiate or 
spirituous liquor shall suspend the operation of grief, 
fear, or anger, in spite of all our efforts to the contrary; 
and this by inducing in the body a disposition contrary 
to that which it receives from these passions.” This 
passage is extracted from Burke on the Sublime and 
Beautiful. 

2 . 

‘‘ Who can explain wherein consists the difference of 
organization between an idiot and another man ? ” 

The naturalist, whether Buffon or any other, who is 
become famous, and who can ask this question, wdl 
never be satisfied with any given answer, even though it 
were the most formal demonstration. 

3. 

Diet and exercise would be of no use when recom¬ 
mended to the dying.” 

No human wisdom or power can rectify; but that 
which is impossible to man is not so to God. 

4. 

“The appearance without must be deformity and 
shame, when the worm gnaws within.” 

Let the hypocrite, devoured by conscience, assume 
whatever artful appearance he wiU, of severity, tran¬ 
quillity, or vague solemnity, bis distortion wHl ever be 
apparent to the physiognomist. 

5. 

“Take a tree from its native soil, its free air, and 
mountainous situation, and plant it in the confined cir- 


260 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


culation of a hothouse: there it may vegetate, hut in 
a weak and sickly condition. Teed this foreign animal 
in a den; you will find it in vain. It starves in the 
midst of plenty, or grows fat and feeble.” 

This, I am sorry to say, is the mournful history of 
many a man. 

6 . 

A portrait is the ideal of an individual, not of men 
in general.” 

A perfect portrait is neither more nor less than the 
circular form of a man reduced to a flat surface, and 
which shall have the exact appearance of the person for 
whom it was painted seen in a camera obscura. 

7. 

I once asked a friend, “ How does it happen that art¬ 
ful and subtle people always have one or both eyes 
rather closed?”—“Because they are feeble,” answered 
he. “Who ever saw strength and subtlety united? 
The mistrust of others is meanness towards ourselves.” 

8 . 

This same friend, who to me is a man of ten thousand 
for whatever relates to mind, wrote two valuable letters 
on physiognomy to me, from which I am allowed to 
make the following extracts :— 

f “ It appears to me to be an eternal law, that the first\ 
is the only true impression. Of this I offer no proof 
except by asserting such as my belief, and by appealing 
to the sensations of others. The stranger affects me by 
his appearance, and is to my sensitive being what the 
sun would be to a man born blind restored to sight. 


MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS. 


261 


9. 

"Eousseau was right when he said of D., That man 
does not please me, though he has never done me 
; hut I must break with him before it comes 

to that.” 


10 . 

“ Physiognomy is as necessary to man as language.^ 
I may add, as natural. 


CHAPTEE LIII. 

Miscellaneous Thoughts. 

1 . 

Every thing is good. Every thing may, and must be 
misused. Physiognomical sensation is in itself as truly 
good, as godlike, as expressive of the exalted worth of 
human nature, as moral sensation; perhaps they are 
both the same. The suppressing, the destroying a sen¬ 
sation so deserving of honour, where it begins to act, is 
sinning against ourselves, and in reality equal to resist¬ 
ing the good spirit. Indeed, good impulses and actions 
must have their limits, in order that they may not 
impede other good impulses and actions. 

2 . 

Each man is a man of genius in his large or small 
sphere. He has a certain circle in which he can act 
with inconceivable force. The less his kingdom, the 
more concentrated is his power; consequently the more 
irresistible is his form of government. Thus, the bee is 
the greatest of mathematicians as far as its wants ex¬ 
tend. Having discovered the genius of a man, how 



262 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


inconsiderable soever tbe circle of bis activity may be, 
having caught him in the moment when his genius is in 
its highest exertion, the characteristic token of that 
genius will also be easily discovered. 

3. 

The approach of the Godhead cannot be nearer in the 
visible world, and in what we denominate nature, than 
in the countenance of a great and noble man. Christ 
could not but truly say, “ He who seeth Me seeth Him 
that sent me.” God cannot, without a miracle, be seen 
any where so fully as in the countenance of a good man. 
Thus the essence of any man is more present, more 
certain to me, by having obtained his shade. 

4. 

Great countenances awaken and stimulate each other, 
excite all that can be excited. Any nation, having 
once produced a Spenser, a Shakspeare, and a Milton, 
may be certain that a Steele, a Pope, and an Addison 
will follow. A great countenance has the credentials of 
its high original in itself. With calm reverence and 
simplicity nourish the mind with the presence of a great 
countenance; its emanations shall attract and exalt 
thee. A great countenance, in a state of rest, acts more 
powerfully than a common countenance impassioned; 
its effects, though unresembling, are general. The fortu¬ 
nate disciples, though they knew Him not, yet did their 
hearts burn within them while He talked with them by 
the way, and opened to them the scriptures. The buyers 
and sellers, whom he drove out of the Temple, durst not 
oppose Him. 

It may-from hence be conceived how certain persons, 
by their mere persons, have brought a seditious multi- 


MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS. 


263 


tude back to their duty, although the latter had acquired 
the full power. That natural, unborrowed, indwelling 
power, which is consequently superior to any which can 
be assumed, is as evident to all eyes as the thunder of 
heaven is to all ears. 


5. 

Great physiognomical wisdom not only consists in 
discovering the general character of, and being highly 
affected by the present countenance, or this or that 
particular propensity, but in discriminating the indi¬ 
vidual character of each kind of mind, and its capacity, 
and being able to define the circle beyond which it 
cannot pass; to say what sensations, actions, and judg¬ 
ments are, or are not to be expected from the man under 
consideration, that we may not idly waste power, but 
dispense just sufficient to actuate and put him in motion. 
/X No man is more liable to the error of thoughtless 
/ haste than I was. Four or five years of physiognomical 
! observation were requisite to cure me of this too hasty 
waste of power. It is a part of benevolence to give, in¬ 
trust, and participate; but physiognomy teaches when, 
how, and to whom to give. It therefore teaches true 
benevolence, to assist where assistance is wanted, and ^ 
will be accepted. Oh! that I could call at the proper 
moment, and with proper effect, to the feeling and 

r benevolent heart. Waste not, cast not thy seed upon the 
waters, or upon a rock. Speak only to the hearer; un¬ 
bosom thyself but to those who can understand thee; 
i philosophize with none but philosophers; spiritualize 
\ only with the spiritual. It requires greater power to\ 
bridle strength than to give it the rein./ To withhold is 
often better than to give. What is not enjoyed will be 


264 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


cast back with acrimony or trodden to waste, and thus 
will become useless to all. 


6 . 

To the good be good; resist not the irresistible coun¬ 
tenance. Give the eye that asks, that comes recom¬ 
mended to thee by Providence, or by God himself, and 
which to reject is to reject God, who cannot ask thee 
more powerfully than when entreating in a cheerful, 
open, innocent countenance. Thou canst not more im¬ 
mediately glorify God than by wishing and acting well 
to a countenance replete with the spirit of God, nor more 
certainly and abhorrently offend and wound the majesty, 
of God, than by despising, ridiculing, and turning from 
such a countenance. God cannot more effectually move 
man than by man. Whoever rejects the man of God 
rejects God. To discover the radiance of the Creator in 
the visage of man, is the pre-eminent quality of man; it is 
the summit of wisdom and benevolence to feel how much 
of this radiance is there, to discern this ray of Divinity 
through the clouds of the most debased countenances, 
and dig out this small gem of heaven from amid the 
ruins and rubbish by which it is encumbered. 

7. 

Shouldest thou, friend of man, esteem physiognomy 
as highly as I do, to whom it daily becomes of greater 
worth the more I discover its truth ; if thou hast an eye 
to select the few noble, or that which is noble in the 
ignoble, that which is divine in all men, the immortal in 
what is mortal, then speak little, but observe much; 
dispute not, but exercise thy sensation, for thou wilt 
convince no one to whom this sensation is wanting’ 

O* 


MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS. 


265 


Wlien noble poverty presents to you a face in which 
humility, patience, faith, and love, shine conspicuously, 
how superior will thy joy be in his words who has told 
thee, “ Inasmuch as thou hast done it unto one of the 
least of these my brethren, thou hast done it unto me ! ” 
With a sigh of hope you will exclaim, when youth 
and dissipation present themselves. This forehead was 
delineated by God for the search and the discovery of 
truth. In this eye rests unripened wisdom. 


CHAPTEE LIV. 

Of the Union between the Knowledge of the Heart and 
Philanthropy.—Miscellaneous Physiognomical Thoughts 
from Holy Writ. 

May the union between the knowledge of the heart 
and philanthropy be obtained by the same means? 
Does not a knowledge of the heart destroy or weaken 
philanthropy ? Does not our good opinion of any man 
diminish when he is perfectly known ? And if so, how 
may philanthropy be increased by this knowledge ? 

What is here alleged is truth; but it is partial truth. 
And how fruitfiil a source of error is partial truth 1 It, 
is a certain truth that the majority of men are losers by 
being accurately known; but it is no less true that the 
majority of men gain as much on one side as they lose 
on the other by being thus accurately known. Who is 
so wise as never to act foolishly ? Where is the virtue 
wholly unpolluted by vice; with thoughts at all 
moments simple, direct, and pure ? I dare undertake to 
maintain that all men, with some very rare exceptions, 
lose by being known. But it may also be proved by 



266 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


the most irrefragable arguments, that all men gain by 
being known; consequently a knowledge of the heart is 
not detrimental to the love of mankind, but promotes it. 

Physiognomy discovers actual and possible perfec¬ 
tions which, without its aid, must ever have remained 
hidden. The more man is studied, the more power and 
positive goodness will he be discovered to possess. As 
the experienced eye of the painter perceives a thousand 
small shades and colours which are unremarked by 
common spectators; so the physiognomist views a multi¬ 
tude of actual or possible perfections, which escape the 
general eye of the despiser, the slanderer, or even the 
more benevolent judge of mankind. 

The good which I, as a physiognomist, have observed 
in people round me, has more than compensated that 
mass of evil which, though I appeared blind, I could not 
avoid seeing. The more I have studied man the more 
have I been convinced of the general influence of his 
faculties; the more have I remarked that the origin of 
all evil is good; that those very powers which made him 
evil—those abilities, forces, irritability, elasticity, were 
all in themselves actual, positive good. The absence of 
these, indeed, would have occasioned the absence of an 
infinity of evil, but so would they likewise of an infinity 
of good. The essence of good has given birth to much 
evil; but it contained in itself the possibility of a still 
infinite increase of good. 

The least failing of an individual incites a general out¬ 
cry, and his character is at once darkened, trampled on, 
and destroyed. The physiognomist views and praises 
the man whom the whole world condemns. What! 
does he praise vice ?—Does he excuse the vicious ?—No; 
he whispers, or loudly affirms, “Treat this man after 


MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS. 


267 


sucli a manner, and yon will be astonished at what he 
is able, what he may be made willing to perform. 
He is not so wicked as he appears; his countenance is 
better than his actions. His actions, it is true, are legible 
in his countenance, but not more legible than his great 
powers, his sensibility, the pliability of that heart which 
has had an improper bent. Give but these powers 
which have rendered him vicious another direction and 
other objects, and he wiU perform miracles of virtue.” 

The physiognomist will pardon where the most 
benevolent philanthropist must condemn. For myself, 
since I have become a physiognomist, I have gained 
knowledge so much more accurate of so many excellent 
men, and have had such frequent occasions to rejoice 
my heart in the discoveries I made concerning such 
men, that this, as I may say, has reconciled me to the 
whole human race. What I here mention as having 
happened to myself, each physiognomist, being himself 
a man, must have undoubtedly felt. 

Miscellaneous Physiognomical Thoughts from Holy Writ. 

“ Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret 
sins in the light of thy countenance,” Psalm xc. 8.— 
No man believes in the omniscience, or has so strong 
a conviction of the presence of God and his angels, or 
reads the hand of Heaven so visible in the human 
countenance, as the physiognomist. 

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit 
unto his stature ?—And why take ye thought for rai¬ 
ment?—Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his 
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto 
you,” Matt. vi. 27, 28, 33.—No man, therefore, can alter 
his form. The improvement of the internal wiU also 
be the improvement of the external. Let men take care 


268 lavatee’s physiognomy. 

of the internal, and a sufficient care of the external wiUl 
be the result. 

When ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad 
countenance; for they disfigure their faces, that they 
may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you. 
They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, 
anoint thine head and wash thy face; that thou appear 
not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in 
secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, shall re¬ 
ward thee openly,” Matt. vi. 16—18. Virtue, like vice, 
may be concealed from men, but not from the Father in 
secret, nor from him in whom his spirit is, who fathoms 
not only the depths of humanity but of divinity. He is 
rewarded who means that the good he has should be 
seen in his countenance. 

'"Some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls 
came and devoured them up; some fell upon stony 
places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith 
they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth; 
and when the sun was up, they were scorched; and 
because they had no root, they withered away; and 
some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and 
choked them; but others fell into good ground, and 
brought forth fruit, some a hundred-fold, some sixty¬ 
fold, some thirty-fold,” Matt. xiii. 4—8. There are 
many men, many countenances, in whom nothing can be 
planted, each fowl devours the seed; or, they are hard 
like stone, with little earth, (or flesh,) have habits which 
stifle all that is good. There are others that have good 
bones, good flesh, with a happy proportion of each, and 
no stifling habits. 

“ For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and ho 
shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath 


MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS. 


269 


not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath,” 
Matt. xiii. 12.—True again of the good and bad counte¬ 
nance. He who is faithful to the propensities of ^ature, 
he hath, he enjoys, he will manifestly be ennobled. The 
bad will lose even the good traits he hath received. 

''Take heed that ye despise not one of these little 
ones ; for I say unto you. That in heaven their angels do 
always behold the face of my Father which is in 
heaven,” Matt, xviii. 10.—Probably the angels see the 
countenance of the father in the countenance of the 
children. 

" If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. Do ye 
not perceive, that whatever thing from without entereth 
into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth 
not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into 
the draught, purging all meats? And he said. That 
which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man,” 
Mark vii. 17—20. This is physiognomically true. Not 
external accidents, not spots which may be washed 
away, not wounds which may be healed, not even scars 
which remain, will defile the countenance in the eye of 
the physiognomist, neither can paint beautify it to him. 

" A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” Gal. v. 9. 
A little vice often deforms the whole countenance. One 
single false trait makes the whole a caricature. 

"Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and 
read of all men. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly 
declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, 
written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living 
God,” 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3. What need have the good of 
letters of recommendation to the good? The open 
countenance recommends itself to the open countenance. 
No letters of recommendation can recommend the per- 


270 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


fidious countenance, nor can any slanderer deprive the 
countenance, beaming with the divine spirit, of its letters 
of recommendation. A good countenance is the best 
letter of recommendation. 

I shall conclude with the important passage from the 
eleventh of the Eomans : 

'"Grod hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he 
might have mercy upon all. 0 the depth of the richer 
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How un¬ 
searchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding 
out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or 
who hath been his counsellor ? or who hath first given 
to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. 
To whom be glory for ever. Amen.” 


CHAPTEE LV. 

Of the apparently false Decisions of Physiognomy—Of the 
general Objections made to Physiognomy—Particular 
Objections answered. 

One of the strongest objections to the certainty of 
physiognomy is, that the best physiognomists often 
judge very erroneously. 

It may be proper to make some remarks on this ob¬ 
jection. 

Be it granted that the physiognomist often errs ; that 
is to say his discernment errs, not the countenance. But 
to conclude there is no such science as physiognomy, 
because physiognomists err, is the same thing as to con¬ 
clude there is no reason, because there is much false 
reasoning. 



OF FALSE DECISIONS. 


271 


To suppose that, because the physiognomist has made 
some false decisions, he has no physiognomical discern¬ 
ment, is equal to supposing that a man who has com¬ 
mitted some mistakes of memory, has no memory; or, 
at best, that his memory is very weak.—We must he 
less hasty. We must first inquire in what proportion 
his memory is faithful, how often it has failed, how 
often been accurate. The miser may perform ten acts 
of charity; must we therefore affirm lie is charitable ? 
Should we not rather inquire how much he might have 
given, and how often it has been his duty to give ? The 
virtuous man may have ten times been guilty; but before 
he is condemned it ought to be asked, in how many hun¬ 
dred instances he has acted uprightly. He who games 
must oftener lose than he who refrains from gaming. 
He who slides or skates upon the ice is in danger 
of many a fall, and of being laughed at by the less 
adventurous spectator. Whoever frequently gives alms 
is liable occasionally to distribute his bounties to the 
unworthy. He indeed who never gives cannot com¬ 
mit the same mistake, and may truly vaunt of his 
prudence, since he never furnishes opportunities for 
deceit. In like manner, he who never judges can never 
judge safely. The physiognomist judges oftener than 
the man who ridicules physiognomy; consequently 
must oftener err than he who never risks a physiogno¬ 
mical decision. 

Which of the favourable judgments of the benevolent 
physiognomists may not be decried as false ? Is he not 
himself a mere man, however circumspect, upright, 
honourable, and exalted he may be; a man who has in 
himself the root of all evil, the germ of every vice; or, 
in other words, a man whose most w;orthy propensities, 


272 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


qualities, and inclinations, may occasionally be over¬ 
strained, wrested, and warped ? 

You behold a meek man who, after repeated and con¬ 
tinued provocations to wrath, persists in silence; who 
probably never is overtaken by anger when he himself 
alone is injured. The physiognomist can read his heart, 
fortified to bear and forbear, and immediately exclaims. 
Behold the most amiable, the most unconquerable gentle¬ 
ness ! You are silent—you laugh—you leave the place 
and say, Tie on such a physiognomist! How full of 
wrath have I seen this man When was it that you 
saw him in wrath ? Was it not when some one had mis¬ 
treated his friend ?—“ Yes, and he behaved like a frantic 
man in defence of his friend, which is proof sufficient 
that the science of physiognomy is a dream, and the 
physiognomist a dreamer.” But who is in an error, the 
physiognomist or his censurer?—The wise man may 
sometimes utter folly. This the physiognomist knows, 
but, regarding it not, reverses, and pronounces him a wise 
man. You ridicule the decision, for you have heard this 
wise man say a foolish thing.—Once more, who is in an 
error ? The physiognomist does not judge from a single 
incident, and often not from several combining incidents. 
Hor does he, as a physiognomist, judge only by actions. 
He observes the propensities, the character, the essential 
qualities and powers, which often are apparently con¬ 
tradicted by individual actions. 

Again; he who seems stupid or vicious may yet pro¬ 
bably possess indications of a good understanding, and 
propensities to every virtue. Should the beneficent eye 
of the physiognomist, who is in search of good, perceive 
these qualities and announce them; should he not pro¬ 
nounce a decided jud.qment against the man, he im- 


OF FALSE DECISIONS. 


273 


mediately becomes a subject of laughter. Yet how often 
may dispositions to the most heroic virtue be there 
buried! How often may the fire of genius lie deeply 
smothered beneath the embers ?—^Wherefore do you so 
anxiously, so attentively, rake among these ashes ? Be¬ 
cause here is warmth, notwithstanding that at the first, 
second, third, fourth raking, dust only will fly in the 
eyes of the physiognomist and spectator. The latter 
retires laughing, relates the attempt, and makes others 
laugh also. The former may, perhaps, patiently wait 
and warm himseKby the flame he has excited. Innume¬ 
rable are the instances where the most excellent qualities 
are overgrown and stifled by the weeds of error. Futurity 
shall discover why, and the discovery shall not be in 
vain. The common unpractised eye beholds only a de¬ 
solate wilderness. Education, circumstances, necessities, 
stifle every effort towards perfection. The physiognomist 
inspects, becomes attentive, and waits. He sees and ob¬ 
serves a thousand contending contradictory qualities; 
he hears a multitude of voices exclaiming. What a man! 
But he hears too the voice of the Deity exclaim. What 
a man! He prays, while those revile who cannot com¬ 
prehend, or, if they can, will not, that in the countenance, 
under the form they view, lie concealed beauty, power, 
wisdom, and a divine nature. 

StiU further, the physiognomist, or observer of man, 
who is a man, a Christian—that is to say, a wise and 
good man—^will a thousand times act contrary to his 
own physiognomical sensation; I do not express my¬ 
self accurately—he appears to act contrary to his 
internal judgment of the man. He speaks not all he 
thinks. This is an additional reason why the physio¬ 
gnomist so often appears to err; and why the true 


274 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


observer (observation and truth are in him) is so often 
mistaken and ridiculed. He reads the villain in the 
countenance of the beggar at his door^ yet does not turn 
away, but speaks friendly to him, searches his heart, 
and discovers—0 God, what does he discover!—An 
immeasurable abyss, a chaos of vice! But does he 
discover nothing more, nothing good ? Be it granted he 
finds nothing good, yet he there contemplates clay which 
must not say to the potter, Why hast thou made me 
thus?” He sees, prays, turns away his face, and hides 
a tear which speaks with eloquence inexpressible, not to 
man, but to God alone. He stretches out his friendly 
hand, not only in pity to a hapless wife whom he has 
rendered unfortunate,—not only for the sake of his 
helpless, innocent children, but in compassion to him- 
self, for the sake of God, who has made all things, even 
\n0\/ the (wicked themselves; for his own glory! He gives, 
perhaps to kindle a spark which he yet perceives, and 
this is what is called in Scripture giving his heart. 
"Whether the unworthy man misuses the gift, or misuses 
it not, the judgment of the donor will alike be arraigned. 
Whoever hears of the gift will say. How has this good 
man again suffered himself to be deceived ! 

Man is not to be the judge of man; and who feels this 
truth more coercively than the physiognomist? The 
mightiest of men, the Euler of man, came not to judge 
the world, but to save. Hot that he did not see the 
vices of the vicious, nor that he concealed them from 
himself or others, when philanthropy required they 
should be remarked and detected; yet he judged not, 
pumshed not; he forgave—“ Go thy way, and sin no 
more.” Judas he received as one of his disciples, pro¬ 
tected him, embraced him—him in whom he beheld his 
future betrayer. 


OF GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 


275 


Good men are most happy to discover good. Thine 
eye cannot he Christian if thou givest me not thine 
heart. Wisdom without goodness is folly; I will judge 
justly and act benevolently. 

Once more. A profligate man, an abandoned woman, 
who have ten times been to blame when they affirmed 
they were not, on the eleventh are condemned when 
they are not to blame. They apply to the physio¬ 
gnomist. He inquires, and finds that this time they are 
innocent. Discretion' loudly tells him he will be 
censured should he suffer it to be known that he 
believes them innocent; but his heart more loudly 
commands him to speak, to bear witness for the present 
innocence of such rejected persons. A word escapes 
him, and a multitude of reviling voices at once are heard 
—“ Such a judgment ought not to have been made by a 
physiognomist!” Yet who has decided erroneously ? 

The above are a few hints and reasons to the discern¬ 
ing, to induce them to judge cautiously concerning the 
physiognomist, as they would wish him to judge con¬ 
cerning themselves or others. 

Of the General Objections made to Physiognomy. 

Innumerable are the objections which may be raised 
against the certainty of judgments drawn from the lines 
and features of the human countenance. Many of these 
appear to me to be easy, many difficult, and some im¬ 
possible to be answered. 

Before I select any of them, I will first state some 
general remarks, the accurate consideration and proof of 
which will remove many difficulties. 

It appears to me that, in aU researches, we ought first 
to inquire what can be said in defence of any proposi- 


m 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


tion. One irrefragable proof of the actual existence and 
certainty of a thing, "will overbalance ten thousand 
objections. One positive witness, who has all possible 
certainty that knowledge and reason can give, will pre¬ 
ponderate against innumerable others who are only 
negative. All objections against a certain truth are in 
reality only negative evidence. “We never observed 
this : we never experienced that.” Though ten thousand 
should make this assertion, what would it prove against 
one man of understanding and sound reason who should 
answer, “ But I have observed, and you also may ob¬ 
serve if you please.” No well-founded objection can be 
made against the existence of a thing visible to sense. 
Argument cannot disprove facts. No two opposing 
positive facts can be adduced; all objections to a fact, 
therefore, must be negative. 

Let this be applied to physiognomy. Positive proofs 
of the true and acknowledged signification of the face 
and its features, against the clearness and certainty of 
which nothiug can be alleged, render innumerable ob¬ 
jections, although they cannot probably be answered, 
perfectly insignificant. Let us therefore endeavour to 
inform ourselves of those positive arguments which 
physiognomy affords. Let us first make ourselves stead¬ 
fast in what is certainly true, and we shall soon be 
enabled to answer many objections, or to reject them as 
unworthy any answer. 

It appears to me, that in the same proportion as a 
man remarks and adheres to the positive, will be the 
strength and perseverance of his mind. He whose 
talents do not surpass mediocrity, is accustomed to 
overlook the positive, and to maintain the negative with 
invincible obstinacy. 


OF GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 


277 


Thou shouldest first consider what thou art, what is 
thy knowledge, and what are thy qualities and powers, 
before thou inquirest what thou art not, knowest not, 
and what the qualities and powers are that thou hast 
not. This is a rule which every man who wishes to be 
wise, virtuous, and happy, ought not only to prescribe 
to himself, but, if I may use so bold a figure, to incorpo¬ 
rate with, and make a part of his very soul. The truly 
wise always first directs his inquiries concerning what 
is ; the man of weak intellect, the pedant, first searches 
for that which is wanting. The true philosopher looks 
first for the positive proofs of the proposition. I say, 
first—I am very desirous that my meaning should not 
be misunderstood, and therefore repeat, Jirsi, The super¬ 
ficial mind first examines the negative objections. This 
has been the method pursued by infidels, the opponents 
of Christianity. Were it granted that Christianity 
were false, still this method would neither be logical, 
true, nor conclusive. Therefore such modes of reason¬ 
ing must be set aside as neither logical nor conclusive, 
before we can proceed to answer objections. 

To return once more to physiognomy, the question 
will be reduced to this—“ Whether there are any proofs 
sufficiently positive and decisive, in favour of physio¬ 
gnomy, to induce us to disregard the most plausible- 
objections ? ”—Of this I am as much convinced as I am of 
my own existence; and every unprejudiced reader will 
be the same who shall read this work through, if he 
only possesses so much discernment and knowledge as 
not to deny that eyes are given us to see; although 
there are innumerable eyes in the world that look and do 
not see. 

It may happen that learned men of a certain descrip- 


278 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


tion will endeavour to perplex me by argument. They, 
for example, may cite the female butterfly of E^aumur, 
and the large-winged ant, in order to prove how much 
we may be mistaken with respect to final causes in the 
products of nature. They may assert, Wings undoubt¬ 
edly appear to be given for the purpose of flight, yet 
these insects never fly; therefore wings are not given 
for that purpose. And, by a parity of reasoning, since 
there are wise men who probably do not see, eyes are 
not given for the purposes of sight.”-:—To such objections 
I shall make no reply, for never in my whole life have 
I been able to answer a sophism. I appeal only to 
common sense. I view a certain number of men, who 
all have the gift of sight when they open their eyes and 
there is light, and who do not see when their eyes are 
shut. As this certain number are not select, but taken 
promiscuously among millions of existing men, it is the 
highest possible degree of probability that all men whose 
formation is similar, that have lived, do live, or shall 
live, being alike provided with those organs we call eyes, 
must see. This, at least, has been the mode of arguing 
and concluding among all nations, and in all ages. In 
the same degree as this mode of reasoning is convincing, 
when applied to other subjects, so it is when applied 
to physiognomy, and is equally applicable; and, if untrue 
in physiognomy, it is equally untrue in every other 
instance. 

I am therefore of opinion that the defender of physio¬ 
gnomy may rest the truth of the science on this proposi¬ 
tion, “ That it is universally confessed that among ten, 
twenty, or thirty men, indiscriminately selected, there 
as ^rtainly ^exists a physiognomical expression, or 
"dehionstrable correipondence of internal power and sen- 




OF GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 


279 


sation, with external form and figure, as that among the 
like number of men, in the like manner selected, they 
have eyes and can see.” Having proved this, he has 
as sufficiently proved the universality and truth of phy¬ 
siognomy as the universality of sight hy the aid of eyes, 
having shown that ten, twenty, or thirty men, by the aid 
of eyes, are all capable of seeing. From a part I draw 
a conclusion to the whole; whether those I have seen or 
those 1 have not. 

But it will be answered, though this may be proved 
of certain features, does it therefore follow that it may 
be proved of all?—I am persuaded it may; if I am 
wrong, show me my error. 

Having remarked that men who have eyes and ears 
see and hear, and being convinced that eyes were given 
him for the purpose of sight, and ears for that of hear¬ 
ing ; being unable longer to doubt that eyes and ears 
have their destined office—I think I draw no improper 
conclusion, when I suppose that every other sense and 
member of this same human body, which so wonder¬ 
fully form a whole, has each a particular purpose; 
although it should happen that I am unable to discover 
what the particular purposes of so many senses, members, 
and integuments may be. Thus do I reason, also, concern¬ 
ing the signification of the countenance of man, the for¬ 
mation of his body, and the disposition of his members. 

If it can be proved that any two or three features have 
a certain determinate signification, as determinate as that 
the eye is the expression of the countenance, is it not 
accurate to conclude, according to the mode of reasoning 
above cited, universally acknowledged to be just, that 
those features are also significant, with the signification 
of which I am unacquainted I think myseK able to 


280 


lavatee’s physiognomy. 


prove, to every person of the commonest understanding^j 
that all men without exception, at least under certain 
circumstances and in some particular feature, may 
indeed have more than one feature of a certain deter¬ 
minate signification, as surely as I can render it compre¬ 
hensible to the simplest person, that certain determinate 
members of the human body are to answer certain 
determinate purposes. 

Twenty or thirty men taken promiscuously, when 
they laugh or weep, will, in the expression of their joy 
or grief, possess something in common with or similar 
to each other. Certain features will bear a greater 
resemblance to each other among them than they other¬ 
wise do, when not in the like sympathetic state of mind. 

To me it appears evident, that since excessive joy and 
grief are universally acknowledged to have their peculiar 
expressions, and that the expression of each is as diffe¬ 
rent as the different passions of joy and grief, it must 
therefore be allowed that the state of rest, the medium 
between joy and grief, shall likewise have its peculiar 
expression; or, in other words, that the muscles which 
surround the eyes and lips will indubitably be found 
to be in a different state. 

If this be granted concerning the state of the mind in 
joy, grief, or tranquillity, why should not the same be 
true concerning pride, humility, patience, magnanimity, 
and other affections ? 

According to certain laws, the stone flies upward when 
thrown with sufficient force; by other laws equally 
certain, it afterwards falls to the earth; and will it not 
remain unmoved according to laws equally fixed, if suf¬ 
fered to be at rest ? Joy, according to certain laws, is 
expressed in one manner, grief in another, and tranquil- 


OF GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 


281 


lity in a third. Wherefore then shall not aiiger, gentle¬ 
ness, pride, humility, and other passions, he subject to 
certain laws; that is, to certain fixed laws ? 

All things in nature are or are not subjected to certain 
laws. There is a cause for all things, or there is not. All 
things are cause and effect, or are not. Ought we not 
hence to derive one of the first axioms of philosophy ? 
And, if this be granted, how immediately is physiognomy 
relieved from all objections, even from those which we 
know not how to answer j that is, as soon as it shall be 
granted there are certain characteristic features in all 
men, as characteristic as the eyes are to the countenace! 

But, it will be said, how different are the expressions 
of joy and grief, of the thoughtful and the thoughtless! 
And how may these expressions be reduced to rule ? 

How different from each other are the eyes of men 
and of all creatures—the eye of an eagle from the eye of 
a mole, an elephant, and a fly I and yet we believe of all 
who have no evident signs of infirmity or death, that 
they see. 

The feet and ears are as various as are the eyes; yet 
we universally conclude of them all, they were given us 
for the purposes of hearing and walking. 

These varieties by no means prevent our believing that 
the eyes, ears, and feet, are the expressions, the organs of 
seeing, hearing, and walking; and why should we not 
draw the same conclusions concerning all features and 
lineaments of the human body? The expressions of 
similiar dispositions of mind cannot have greater variety 
than have the eyes, ears, and feet of all beings that see, 
hear, and walk; yet may we as easily observe and deter¬ 
mine what they have in common, as we can observe and 
determine what the eyes, ears, and feet, which are so vari- 


282 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


OHS among all beings that see, hear, and walk, have also in 
common. This well considered, how many objections 
will be answered, or become insignificant > 


Various Objections to Physiognomy answered. 

Objection 1. 

“ It is said we find persons who from youth to old age, 
without sickness, without debauchery, have continually 
a pale, death-like aspect; who, nevertheless, enjoy an 
uninterrupted and confirmed state of health.” 

Answer. 

These are uncommon cases. A thousand men will 
show their state of health by the complexion and round¬ 
ness of the countenance, to one in whom these appear¬ 
ances will differ from the truth. I suspect that these 
uncommon cases are the effect of impressions made on 
the mother during her state of pregnancy. Such cases 
may be considered as exceptions, the accidental causes 
of which may, perhaps, not be difficult to discover. 

To me it seems we have as little just cause hence to 
draw conclusions against the science of physiognomy, 
as we have against the proportion of the human body, 
because there are dwarfs, giants, and monstrous births. 

Objection 2. 

A friend writes me word, " He is acquainted with a 
man of prodigious strength, who, the hands excepted, 
has every appearance of weakness, and would be sup¬ 
posed weak by all to whom he should be unknown.” 


PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


283 


Answer, 

I could wish to see this man. I much doubt whether 
his strength be only expressed in his hands, or, if it were, 
still it is expressed in the hands; and, were no exterior 
signs of strength to be found, still he must be considered 
as an exception, an example unexampled. But, as I have 
said, I much doubt the fact. I have never yet seen a 
strong man whose strength was not discoverable in 
various parts. 


Objection 3. 

We perceive the signs of bravery and heroism in the 
countenances of men, who are, notwithstanding, the first 
to run away.” 


Answer. 

The less the man is, the greater he wishes to appear. 

But what were these signs of heroism? Did they 
resemble those found in the Farnesian Hercules ?—Of 
this I doubt: let them be drawn, let them be produced; 
the physiognomist will probably say, at the second, if not 
at the first glance, quanta species! Sickness, accident, 
melancholy, likewise deprive the bravest men of courage. 
This contradiction, however, ought to be apparent to the 
physiognomist. 


Objection 4. 

'^We find persons whose exterior appearance denotes 
extreme pride, and who in their actions never betray the 
least symptom of pride.” 


284 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


Answer. 

A man may be proud and affect humility. 

Education and habit may give an appearance of pride, 
although the heart be humble; but this humility of 
heart will shine through an appearance of pride, as sun¬ 
beams through transparent clouds. It is true that this 
apparently proud man would have more humility had he 
less the appearance of pride. 

Objection 5. 

We see mechanics who, with incredible ingenuity, 
produce the most curious works of art, and bring them 
to the greatest perfection ; yet who, in their hands and 
bodies, resemble the rudest peasants and woodcutters; 
while the hands of fine ladies are totally incapable of 
such minute and curious performances.” 

Answer, 

I should desire these rude and delicate frames to be 
brought together and compared. Most naturalists de¬ 
scribe the elephant as gross and stupid in appearance; 
and according to this apparent stupidity, or rather 
according to that stupidity which they ascribe to him, 
wonder at his address. Let the elephant and the tender 
lamb be placed side by side, and the superiority of 
address will be visible from the formation and flexibility 
of the body, without further trial. 

Ingenuity and address do not so much depend upon 
the mass as upon the nature, mobility, internal sensation, 
nerves, construction, and suppleness of the body and its 
parts. 

Delicacy is not power; power is not minuteness. 


PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 285 

Apelles would have drawn better with charcoal than 
many miniature painters with the finest pencil. The 
tools of a mechanic may he rude, and his mind the very 
reverse. Genius will work better with a clumsy hand 
than stupidity with a hand the most pliable. I will, 
indeed, allow your objection to be well-founded, if 
nothing of the character of an artist is discoverable in 
his countenance; but, before you come to a decision, it 
is necessary you should be acquainted with the various 
marks that denote mechanical genius in the face. Have 
you considered the lustre, the acuteness, the penetration 
of his eyes; his rapid, his decisive, his firm aspect; the 
projecting bones of his brow, his arched forehead, the 
suppleness, the delicacy, or the massiness of his limbs ? 
Have you well considered these particulars? ''I could 
not see it in him,” is easily said. More consideration is 
requisite to discover the character of the man. 

Objection 6. 

“ There are persons of peculiar penetration who have 
very unmeaning countenances.” 

Answer, 

The assertion requires proof. 

For my own part, after many hundred mistakes, I 
have continually found the fault was in my want of 
proper observation. At first, for example, I looked for 
the tokens of any particular quality too much in one 
place; I sought and found it not, although I knew the 
person possessed extraordinary powers. I have been 
long before I could discover the seat of character. I was 
deceived, sometimes by seeking too partially, at others 
too generally. To this I was particularly liable in ex- 


286 


lavater’s physiognomy. 


amining those who had only distinguished themselves 
in some particular pursuit; and, in other respects 
appeared to be persons of very common abilities, men 
whose powers were all concentrated to a point, to the 
examination of one subject; or men whose powers were 
very indeterminate: I express myself improperly, 
powers which had never been excited, brought into 
action. Many years ago I was acquainted with a great 
mathematician, the astonishment of Europe; who at the 
first sight, and even long after, appeared to have a very 
common countenance. I drew a good likeness of him, 
which obliged me to pay a more minute attention, and 
found a particular trait which was very marking and 
decisive. A similar trait to this I, many years afterward, 
discovered in another person who, though widely diffe¬ 
rent, was also a man of great talents; and who, this trait 
excepted, had an unmeaning countenance, which seemed 
to prove the science of physiognomy all erroneous. 
Never since this time have I discovered that particular 
trait in any man who did not possess some peculiar 
merit, however simple his appearance might be. 

This proves how true and false, at once, the objection 
may be which states, Such a person appears to be a 
weak man, yet has great powers of mind.” 

I have been written to concerning D’Alembert, whose 
countenance, contrary to all physiognomical science, was 
one of the most common. To this I can make no an¬ 
swer unless I had seen D’Alembert. This much is 
certain, that his profile by Cochin, which yet must be 
very inferior to the original, not to mention other less 
obvious traits, has a forehead, and in part a nose, which 
were never seen in the countenance of any person of 
moderate, not to say mean, abilities. 


PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 


287 


Objection 7. 

“We find very silly people with very expressive 
countenances.” 

Who does not daily make this remark? My only 
answer, which I have repeatedly given, and which I 
think perfectly satisfactory, is, that the endowments of 
nature may he excellent; and yet by want of use, or 
abuse, may be destroyed. Power is there, but it is 
power misapplied; the fire wasted in the pursuit of 
pleasure can no longer be applied to the discovery and 
display of truth—it is fire without light, fire that iu- 
effectually burns. 

I have the happiness to be acquainted with some of 
the greatest men in Germany and Switzerland; and I 
can upon my honour assert, that of aU the men of 
genius with whom I am acquainted, there is not one who 
does not express the degree of invention and powers of 
mind he possesses in the features of his countenance, 
and particularly in the form of his head. 

I shall only select the following names from an 
innumerable multitude. Charles XII., Louis XIV., 
Turenne, Sully, Polignac, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, 
Xewton, Clarke, Maupertuis, Pope, Locke, Swift, Lessing, 
Bodmer, Sultzer, Haller. I believe the character of 
greatness in these heads is visible in every well-drawn 
outline. I could produce numerous specimens, among 
which an experienced eye would scarcely ever ba 
mistaken. 


ll'COBqUODALS CO., PBINTEBS, LONDON- WOEK3, NEWTON, 



4 


% 


I 





I 


I 


I 




f 


\ ^ 


4 





< 



* 


i 


« 


4 


4 


i 




t 

> 



H 148 82 


LE 0 '23 











^ ^ * 


0 

’ 

aV«^ ** 

^ *. , 

*^ • • * A^ t ^ -w 

* * • % V / .‘>2^% y .'* 









o V 



4> 


\V ^ . « • o- > V » 

C>^iP 


k * • 


,/■ V O' 



► ’ T* *^3 '♦•'To’ \0’ 

o-’..**,. “V ^ 0 '^ . 


o.. C^^ .-*-0 "^o ^ "^-f» 


'n 


b V 




/ %. 

♦f(VvM/wj,o o 

V ''.o- <* v/A'skaw^ vv ♦ A? ^jt. ♦. 


m'-v wM\w** aV •S'a • ^ ♦ 

V •'?.?•* A <;, 0 ^ % 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

»' O ^ NloiitraliTinn anont- Mannpciiim Ovirlo * 



•r ”0 


'St 


oV 


Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Nov. 2004 


o 4^ ^ 

'»** ^ ^ ♦« PreservationTechnologies 

j)^ ^ **" ..... 

-\>JH aSw* o‘ fy//'«Z!A\\V • 


A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive ^ | 

Cranberry Township, PA 16066 « 

(724)779-2111 






WA 








0^ V.,,. 

^ v' i 

« ^ ♦rf(\%#A** •%«. A?- .V 

'■ *. - . r. 

. I « ♦ ^ a\’ - ' • • • *0 O. • 



^ 6 • * • # ^ k. I « '*t*' 

< V ♦ 4PJ/7Z^3tk O 




o 
% 

. .. °*»- '••^•* A®’ 

<• -^rr.** o*-^ \ °*Tf ^ •> 

•*••* '^-t. ** ,0^ 

'*. ® .‘JwKib!’ ^ > .' 

• .jSir^^- ^K ®' 

o iP Vtl 





. ^5 •. 


V 


• « 0 


(R^*- '^_. . 0®^ **®o 


• tf 0 



O ^ 

♦•’ll** ^ .0*^ 

K : "W" {^\ \/ 

. 0 • • . ^ 

*t_f» -1’ .A" .< 

-Ji, <y .*, 







MAY 82 

N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 


V • 


JlV •’•®- V^ •• 

’'rCOvVA- »*<' 

,VA. :^E;^: ci 


























